Previous 53 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 180. Por otra parte, se estima que la medida legislativa es instrumentalmente adecuada, pues a través de la imposición de la sanción, consistente en la pérdida en beneficio de la Nación de los bienes, instalaciones y equipos empleados en la prestación de servicios de telecomunicaciones o radiodifusión, sin contar con concesión o autorización, se priva al infractor de los medios para realizar la conducta infractora; adicionalmente, la severidad de la sanción es un factor de inhibición para que las demás personas realicen la misma conducta. 181. Finalmente, la medida legislativa es proporcional en sentido estricto, pues la pérdida de los bienes se limitan a aquellas estrictamente relacionadas con las instalaciones y equipos empleados en la comisión de la infracción administrativa, sin incluir otros; si bien es cierto que esa pérdida produce una afectación que pudiera ser relevante en el patriminio del sujeto infractor, debe concluirse que en cualquier caso es mayor el beneficio colectivo logrado con la norma impugnada, pues los desincetivos para que las personas burlen el régimen de concesiones para la prestación de los servicios de telecomunicaciones es indispensable para que el Estado logre realizar los fines del artículo 28 constitucional, a saber, garantizar que dichos servicios sean prestados en condiciones de competencia, calidad, pluralidad, cobertura universal, interconexión, convergencia, continuidad, acceso libre y sin injerencias arbitrarias, en beneficio de la autonomía de todas las personas para el libre ejercicio de sus libertades fundamentales. 182. Así, el artículo 305 de la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión supera el estándar de escrutinio ordinario, por lo que debe concluirse que no viola el artículo 7° constitucional, pues no establece una restricción indirecta a la libertad de expresión ni al derecho de acceso a la información. 183. Por tanto, al ajustarse al parámetro de control fijado en esta sentencia, el precepto impugnado debe reconocerse como válido, por lo que los argumentos de la recurrente deben calificarse como infundados. 53

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitude: 22.450275925480113

Longitude: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (linked Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: 5 de out. de 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

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 de jul. de 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Primary Documents

Notifications