Argentine Supreme Court Upholds Federal Jurisdiction in Admiralty Dispute

On June 25, 2024, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice ruled on a conflict of jurisdiction between the federal justice and the local courts of the Province of Corrientes, regarding a criminal case over the collision of a Paraguayan tug and a fishing boat in the Parana River. With the votes of justices Horacio D. Rosatti, Carlos F. Rosenkrantz, and Juan Carlos Maqueda, the Court agreed with the Attorney General’s opinion and declared that the case must be solved by the Federal Court of Corrientes No. 2.

The federal justice initially declined its jurisdiction in the case brought by the National Coastguard, considering that the incident that ultimately caused the death of one of the victims had not affected the river’s free navigation or fluvial commerce, nor Argentina’s national patrimony or the activities of organizations or agents of such character.

The local court, in turn, also declined to hear the case, arguing that the accident had occurred in the context of international cargo navigation and in a river of interjurisdictional traffic and circulation, all of which affected federal interests. Moreover, the provincial court pointed out that the fishing boat had obstructed the river’s navigation canal, and that the diversion manoeuvre the tug attempted had not respected the required sound signals.

Once the matter was raised to the Supreme Court, the Court referred it back to the local court, to allow the federal judge to ascertain the reasons for the rejection and state its position. However, the provincial court allegedly misplaced the copies of the file, despite later stating that the federal judge had been informed of the grounds for the rejection. This issue was mentioned in the Attorney General’s opinion, who suggested that the delay in the proceedings—which, reportedly, lasted for almost five years—could be a case of jurisdictional deprivation, given that the provincial justice system had acted to the detriment of proper judicial service.

The Attorney General pointed out that, strictly, there had not been a conflict of jurisdiction, since the federal judge did not have the opportunity to insist or withdraw its initial rejection of competence, as there was no such record in the proceedings. Although the Supreme Court shared this criterion, the justices decided to settle the dispute for the sake of procedural efficiency.

On the merits of the issue, the Attorney General’s opinion—which the Supreme Court adopted—considered that the accident would have compromised the safety of navigation, which the National Coastguard is responsible for preserving in waters of interjurisdictional traffic and circulation, since the fishing boat had turned over and resulted in the death of one of its crew members.

Therefore, despite the fact that the Coastguard’s report had determined that the boats had not affected the navigability of the river, the Attorney General considered that the federal courts should investigate the incident.

Case: “Sánchez, Ramón (víctima) s/ muerte por causa dudosa” Docket No. CSJ 1435/2017/CSJ, Supreme Court of Justice.