Court of Appeals Confirms Rejection of Amparo Against Amendments to the Aviation Regime in Decree 70/2023

In the case "Asociación de Pilotos de Líneas Aéreas c/ Estado Nacional Poder Ejecutivo DNU 70/23 s/ amparo," docket 20209/2023, Chamber I of the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters rejected the appeal filed by the Airline Pilots Association (APLA) against the first instance court’s ruling that rejected an action for constitutional protection of fundamental rights (amparo) APLA sought.

 

APLA originally filed the lawsuit against the Federal Government on December 29, 2023,  seeking to render Emergency Decree 70/2023 null and void on unconstitutionality grounds. In the suit, APLA especially challenged the repeal of Law 19030 on National Policy for Commercial Air Transport, of Article 9 of Law 26412, and the amendments to the Aeronautical Code.

 

On February 14, 2024, the First Instance Federal Court in Civil and Commercial Matters No. 4 of the City of Buenos Aires rejected the amparo (click here to see our comments on the ruling). APLA appealed this ruling, challenging the finding that the association lacked standing to sue and that there was not a proper “case" to request the judicial control of constitutionality.

 

Once the appeal was granted, the Court of Appeals ordered the intervention of the Court of Appeals Public Prosecutor, considering the constitutionality challenge and the nature of the claim.

 

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals substantially agreed with the first court’s ruling and held that the challenges APLA raised neither demonstrated a specific, direct, or immediate interest as the object of the claim, nor explained the alleged errors or omissions in the first instance ruling. Thus, the Court of Appeals found that there was no "case" that would allow for the judicial control of a Decree.

 

The Court of Appeals stated that the first instance ruling complied with the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice to ascertain the existence of a “case,” which aims to safeguard the principle of separation of powers.

 

The Court of Appeals did not follow the prosecutor's opinion to partially admit the appeal, since it considered that APLA had not been able to provide a well-grounded explanation regarding the direct or substantial impact of any of the regulations of the Emergency Decree. Therefore, it found no reasons to grant the exceptions the Public Prosecutor had proposed.

 

Considering the absence of a “case," and deeming it unnecessary to rule on the other aspects included in the appeal, the Court of Appeals confirmed the rejection of the amparo, clarifying that its ruling was not a pronouncement on the constitutional validity of the Emergency Decree, but only on the required conditions to enable judicial intervention. 

 

As of the date this article was written, there is no indication from the public consultation of the digital docket that APLA has filed an extraordinary appeal before the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice.