Supreme Court clarifies limits of presidential decrees in ruling

Argentina's Supreme Court has declared an article of a 2019 presidential decree unconstitutional, providing a significant clarification on the limitations of decrees of necessity and urgency (DNUs). The ruling emerged from a relatively minor dispute concerning a 700,000 peso fine imposed on the retail company Cencosud.

The case originated when Cencosud was fined by the Undersecretariat for Consumer Defense for charging a higher price for a product than advertised on its shelf tag. Cencosud appealed the fine under Article 53 of DNU 274/2019, which stipulated that such appeals could only be heard by the Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber. This provision raised the question of whether the executive branch could dictate such procedural jurisdiction via a decree.

“

The exceptionality must be rigorous.

Initially, a lower federal court declared Article 53 unconstitutional, arguing that the executive branch had usurped a power belonging to Congress and transferred the case to the federal administrative litigation chamber. However, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the unconstitutionality of the article, reinforcing the principle that DNUs are valid only under specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court stressed that DNUs must be justified by a situation of "grave social risk" requiring swift action and must be accompanied by specific motivation. The court underscored that the executive branch's convenience is never sufficient grounds to impose exceptional legal measures. Furthermore, the ruling clarified that even if Congress ratifies a DNU, it does not preclude judicial review, and parliamentary silence does not legitimize such decrees.

“

The criteria of convenience of the Executive Branch never justify imposing a right of exception.