MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 24th 2016 - 10:35 UTC

Supreme Court will decide on Clarin/Argentine government conflict next week

Saturday, December 8th 2012 - 04:02 UTC
Full article 33 comments
With three Justices absent the Argentine Supreme Court held the emergency meeting With three Justices absent the Argentine Supreme Court held the emergency meeting

The Argentine Supreme Court delayed on Friday until next week an answer to President Cristina Fernandez administration’s complaint referred to the Media Law when the seven Justices are present. Currently one is overseas on an academic trip and two others were unable to attend the emergency meeting.

On Friday the high court received two ‘per saltum’ pleas that sought the annulment of a Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals' ruling which further extended an injunction placed by Clarín media group on Article 161 of the Media Law.

The two-hour meeting was held by the Supreme Court's president, Ricardo Lorenzetti, and Justices Elena Highton de Nolasco, Enrique Petracchi and Juan Carlos Maqueda.

The justices analysed the complaints and decided to send copies to Raul Zaffaroni, on a conference trip in Colombia and to Carmen Argibay and Carlos Fayt, also absent at the meeting.

The Argentine government wants the injunction dropped so that under controversial article 161 of the Media Law it can begin to dismember the Clarin group by forcibly selling or tendering all those broadcasting, television and cable licences, beyond the limit allowed by the 2009 law.

However the injunction was originally presented and extended on Thursday by a Civil and Commercial Appeals court since the Clarin Group is waiting a decision on the constitutionality of Articles 45 and 161 of the Media Law.

With the 'per saltum' plea the Argentine government avoids the lower courts and appeals directly so that the Supreme Court decides on “serious institutional cases”. Under the law the mere admission of the plea suspends all other actions, in this case the injunction and the Argentine government could then proceed to the dismembering of the Clarin group with no need to wait for the constitutional question of article 161.

However if the court throws out the plea the case continues as it was meaning the Argentine government would have to again appeal the injunction which would probably finally end on the desks of the Supreme Justice.

But the Supreme Court did throw out as ‘inadmissible’ a plea from the Clarin Group for the Justices not to consider the Argentine government ‘per saltum’ plea.

Categories: Politics, Argentina.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • TipsyThink

    This is politicál case,coúrts can not decide on these,

    The governmént can finish Clarín whenever it wants by blocking it's advértisement accepting or/and employee strikes manipulations.

    Another sámple as recent UK/Murdoch opératioñ was intrigued by invísible hands.

    Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:18 am 0
  • ChrisR


    So although the 'law' is enacted, the judiciary cannot rule on it.

    Are you for fcuking real?

    Please tell me, if you dare, just what is the judiciary for in that shithole you call AG?

    What a damnable country it has become.

    Dec 08th, 2012 - 09:55 am 0
  • toxictaxitrader2

    Why not wait until till the constitutional position is clear,would that not be fair?

    Dec 08th, 2012 - 10:01 am 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!