MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Daniel Amézquita, Iván Valdespino, Sofía Jurado and Gilda Velázquez, Galicia Abogados
from Mexico’s trading partners in the upcom - ing United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) review scheduled for this year. Article 18.17 (Telecommunications Regulatory Bodies) of the USMCA stipulates that Mexico must ensure that its telecommunications regu - latory body does not have a financial interest in, nor maintain an operational or administrative role in, any public telecommunications service provider. A footnote further states that, for Mex - ico, the telecommunications regulatory body is autonomous from the Executive Branch, inde - pendent in its decisions and operations, and is tasked with regulating and promoting competi - tion and the efficient development of telecom - munications, in accordance with the prevailing Mexican law at the time. While the autonomy of the antitrust authority is not a requirement under the USMCA, the loss of such autonomy could be challenged as a regres - sive measure in violation of the ratchet clause in Chapter 14 of the USMCA. From a litigation perspective, the governmental structure proposed by the reform means that actions taken by the new antitrust, telecom - munications, transparency and data protection authorities may be challenged through a nullity trial before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (a court of legality), in contrast to the current system, where the only available legal remedy against COFECE, IFT or INAI actions is the amparo lawsuit (a constitutional remedy). Regarding antitrust law, this change is signifi - cant because litigation would, in principle, be resolved by the ordinary chambers of the Fed - eral Court of Administrative Justice, whereas currently, the Federal Judiciary has specialised bodies for this field.
This will undoubtedly shift a substantial work - load from district courts to the chambers of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (a body within the Federal Public Administration with technical autonomy), which will likely necessi - tate a reassessment of the Court’s composition, potentially requiring the creation of more spe - cialised chambers by subject matter. Reform to the Amparo Law On 18 February 2025, the Justice Committee of the House of Representatives approved the bills to amend the Amparo Law and the Regulatory Law of Sections I and II of Article 105 of the Constitution, with the aim of harmonising them with the Judicial Reform. The key modifications include: • In amparo lawsuits against general norms, provisional or definitive suspensions will not have general effects, meaning they will only benefit the parties involved in the lawsuit and not third parties. • In constitutional controversies ( controversias constitucionales ), the suspension of chal - lenged norms will not be granted. • Judges and magistrates may not seek amp - aro relief against sanctions imposed by the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, formerly known as the Federal Judiciary Council. • The number of votes required in the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation for its decisions to be binding on all judicial authorities is adjusted to six. • The provisions referring to the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice are repealed, as the Court will only hold sessions in Plenary. Although the restriction imposed on rulings granting suspension in amparo lawsuits – pro - hibiting them from having general effects – has
184 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook