Have Competence Conflicts Regarding Consumer Relations in the City of Buenos Aires Come to an End?

On December 22, 2022, the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Buenos Aires (TSJ), in re "Benítez, María Fernanda c/ FCA S.A. de ahorro para fines determinados y otros s/ relación de consumo", confirmed the competence of local courts to decide in consumer disputes in which a positive conflict of jurisdiction rises between the Administrative, Tax, and Consumer Relations Court of the City of Buenos Aires (CATyRC) and the National Commercial Court in the same jurisdiction.

Background

Ms. Maria Fernanda Benitez filed a complaint before a CATyRC Court seeking the payment of a fine stemming from the delay in delivering a vehicle that was purchased through a savings plan. In answering the complaint, the company in charge of the delivery  did not consent to the court’s competence to decide the case: it stated not only the incompetence of the Buenos Aires Court but also that it had timely filed a motion before the National Commercial Court to inhibit its competence based on both the unconstitutionality of extending the local courts’ competence to handle consumer matters and the illegitimacy of applying the Procedural Code of Justice in Consumer Relations (CPJRC).

This motion was favorably received by the Commercial Court No. 28 in the City of Buenos Aires, who stated that, since the national courts in this matter did not transfer their competence to the Courts of the City of Buenos Aires, and since the law regulating the attributes of local government and the preservation of the Nation’s interests in its territory has not yet been amended (Law No. 24588),  the legislation under discussion was contrary to the principle of constitutional supremacy.

However, the original judge of the case rejected the inhibition, ratified his competence, and ordered the referral of the case to the TSJ to settle the conflict.

Having been notified of that rejection, the Commercial Court of the City of Buenos Aires considered the dispute to be blocked and sent the case to the Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN).

 

The Judgment of the TSJ

The majority of the TSJ assumed the competence to resolve the dispute, according to the precedent established by the CSJN in "Bazán" (Rulings 342:509).

Regarding the conflict, the judges stated that "The jurisdictional competence to handle the reparation of damages arising from a consumer relation has been expressly conferred by the Congress to the City of Buenos Aires through Law 26361, which amended Law 24240". Articles 40 bis, 41, 45, 53, and subsequent of the aforementioned law establish that the City and the Provinces act as authorities in the local application of the provisions therein.

 

Therefore, they concluded that Law 24240 "contains explicit provisions that grant the City of Buenos Aires jurisdiction to understand in lawsuits where the extent and/or existence of consumer relations are disputed, in line with what the plaintiff intends".

 

In his opinion, Judge Lozano sustained that the courts of the City of Buenos Aires exercise exclusive jurisdiction in the following matters:

 

• Reviewing acts of local administrative authorities imposing sanctions on suppliers.
• Direct damage indemnity as a result of consumer relations.
• Indemnifying other damages produced as a result of consumer relations (limited by the reparation imposed by law), including punitive damages.

 

Judge Lozano understood that the national justice must handle –in a residual way– cases clashing with "other rights that consumers may exercise under Law 24240 and others in line with it".  In this sense, he explained that such proceedings should resemble those “claims not aimed mainly at repairing damages arising from a consumer relation" such as those claims related to the suppliers’ violation of information duty, the request for partial nullity of a contract, or the request to cease illegal advertising, among others, without neglecting lawsuits that may be considered of federal interest considering the matter in dispute.

 

Moreover, the TSJ clarified the validity of motions to inhibit as a valid mechanism to discuss issues of competence between the courts in the CABA and the ordinary courts of the Nation.

 

Final considerations

The TSJ ratified its position as competent court to settle jurisdiction conflicts between national courts and local courts located in the CABA. The CSJN will have to confirm such ruling.

 

Unanimously, it attributed competence to the local courts to intervene in all conflicts where the extent and/or existence of consumer relations are disputed, without delving into the constitutionality of the recent creation of local consumer courts, and the distribution of aptitudes they have with the National Commercial Courts.

 

Judge Lozano considered that, until the transfer of competences is carried out completely, the CATyRC courts would exclusively review damage claims and acts of local administrators imposing sanctions on suppliers. On the other hand, the national courts would be competent to understand in other consumer matters on a residual basis.

 

It seems to us that the delimitation of the competence of these controversies between national and local courts in CABA continues to raise questions that judges will have to answer on a case-by-case basis.