Précédent 20 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 estudiarán de manera conjunta para abordar la cuestión efectivamente planteada. 66. Esta Sala observa que la recurrente conjunta los contenidos de los dos artículos constitucionales -el 7 y el 22- para sustentar una misma conclusión, a saber, que la sanción contemplada en el artículo 305 de la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión, consistente en la pérdida de los bienes utilizados en la prestación de servicios de telecomunicaciones sin la autorización respectiva viola los derechos de acceso a la información, libertad de prensa y acceso a las tecnologías de la información. Lo relevante del planteamiento de la recurrente es que señala que esta violación se actualiza de manera indirecta y no directa. 67. En la sentencia recurrida se dieron dos razones para negar una violación al artículo 7 constitucional: 1) la norma constitucional prohibe los actos unilaterales que afecten los derechos humanos de acceso a la información y libertad de prensa, mientras que el precepto legal establece una sanción cuya aplicación se condiciona al seguimiento de un procedimiento de derecho administrativo sancionador, el cual se ubica por fuera de su ámbito de aplicación y 2) la prohibición constitucional de la autoridad de secuestrar los bienes utilizados para la difusión de información, opiniones e ideas como instrumento del delito sólo se aplica a la materia penal, por lo que no podría extenderse al derecho administrativo sancionador. 68. En otra parte, en la sentencia recurrida se desestimó que el artículo combatido vulnere el artículo 22 constitucional, ya que éste se limita a prohibir la pena de confiscación de bienes, mientras que el precepto legal combatido establece un decomiso de los instrumentos de la comisión de la infracción administrativa, consideración que se sustentó en una distinción jurisprudencial que ha sido utilizada por esta Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación en distintos precedentes. Así, el juez de Distrito concluyó que debía aplicarse por analogía la tesis de la Segunda Sala de rubro: “RADIO Y TELEVISIÓN. EL ARTÍCULO 104 BIS, PRIMER PÁRRAFO, DE LA LEY FEDERAL RELATIVA, NO 20

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitude: 22.450275925480113

Longitude: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: 5 oct. 2022

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Mexico

Case Number: Amparo 136/2021

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of Mexico held that the seizure of devices that provide internet services without a license did not violate the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Article 305 of the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law establishes that persons who provide telecommunications or broadcasting services without a license or authorization shall forfeit in favor of the Nation the property, installations, and equipment used in the commission of such infractions. The petitioner, who had devices that were used to provide internet services without the required license, claimed that the seizure violated the right to freedom of expression and access to information because the internet allowed people to express their ideas and receive information. Additionally, the petitioner referred to Article 7 of the Mexican Constitution, which establishes that “in no case property used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas may be seized as an instrument of crime”. The Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting argued that there was no censorship nor restrictions to the dissemination of information, but rather a punitive measure against an illegal provision of services.

The Court held that the prohibition of the confiscation of equipment and properties used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas only applies as a “hard rule” when those goods are substantially linked to the aforementioned purposes (for example, printing instruments of a newspaper or the paper needed to publish magazines or books) or when the seizure is used to censor certain ideas or points of view. Further, the Court held that devices used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas should not be confused with any infrastructure or devices used for the provision of public services, and that, here, the seizure of goods did not seek to penalize a certain point of view, nor prevent a certain group of people from expressing their opinions. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner did not engage in the provision of these irregular services to disseminate certain information, but rather they intended to make these services available to people to obtain an economic benefit. The Court noted that licenses for the provision of public telecommunications and broadcasting services are instruments that allow States to guarantee that public services, such as the internet, are provided under conditions of competition, quality, plurality, universal coverage, continuity, free access, and without arbitrary interferences for the benefit of all persons. In the Court’s opinion, the legal framework is clear and neutral, and the sanctions established to ensure its effectiveness pursue a legitimate aim and are reasonable and proportionate.

Case Significance: The decision of the Mexican Supreme Court allowed the seizure of devices that were being used to provide internet services without an appropriate license. It also clarified the standards and levels of scrutiny that must be used when analyzing these types of sanctions. Furthermore, the Court dsicussed the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the balance that must be struck when it comes to licenses and authorizations. However, it held that the seizure of goods used in the illegal provision of internet services could not be considered a disproportionate measure even in places where the internet is not easily accessible, as the petitioner argued in this case. Even if the contested measure only affects the instruments that are strictly related to the commission of the infraction, there are less restrictive alternatives to achieve the same goals, especially considering the importance of providing internet in low-access zones. A possible less restrictive alternative instead of the seizure could be, for example, a mere fine and an order or recommendation to request the appropriate license.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Constitución
Ley de Seguridad Nacional

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Documents principaux

Notifications