Extraordinary Appeals (Certiorari). Flexibilization of Supreme Court Rule 4/2007

In March 2007, the Federal Supreme Court enacted Rule 4/2007, by which extraordinary appeal (certiorari) and direct appeal before the Federal Supreme Court adjective requirements were unified and systematized.

The purpose of the Rule is to speed up the resolution of the huge amount of appeals pending before the Highest National Court that prevent the proper and efficient administration of justice.

In fact, the Rule summarizes and unites into a single piece of legislation the existing legal requirements in order to fulfill the appeal’s procedural conditions. The only true innovations are the cap on the amount of pages per motion (40 or 10 pages, depending on the kind of appeal), the limit on the amount of lines (26 lines) and the size of the font (never less than 12). In addition, a cover briefing the case is required.

The rule allows the Supreme Court to single-handedly dismiss insufficient filings. However, Section 11 entitles the Court to hear the insufficient appeals when the omission does not represent an unavoidable hurdle, according to the Court’s “discretion” (sana discreción).

Although the Rule presents some inaccuracies in its drafting and has been the subject of numerous criticisms, it has been applied to every appeal filed after the judicial winter break of 2007. Indeed, the enforcement of the exception provided by Section 11 reveals an adaptability trend with regard to the procedural legal requirements.

The first case to highlight is “Pavón” (Fallos P. 973. XLIII, December 16, 2008). In this decision, the Court held that font size does not represent an unavoidable obstacle whenever the document is capable of being read.

Another interesting precedent is “Acosta” (Fallos A. 1320. XLIV, April 8, 2009). In this case the Court established that the rule requirements can be avoided when federal crimes against humanity were involved.

The same legal opinion was adopted by Justice Zaffaroni in many other criminal prosecutions (Fallos G. 779. XLIII, December 11, 2008; M. 1085. XLIII, March 28, 2008; J. 97. XLIII, March 28, 2008; B. 1100. XLIII, February 26, 2008; among others).

Regarding the cover required by Section 2, the Court ruled that it may be omitted when the grounds of the appeals belong to a “group of precedents” (stare decisis) by which the Court has already decided in the same way that is pleaded by the appellant.

The same criteria have been adopted in re “Machado” (Fallos M. 1054. XLIV, May 27, 2009) and “Ardiles” (Fallos A. 685. XLV, February 22, 2011), when an insurance contract term enforceability to third parties was the legal issue under interpretation.

An identical standard was applied in re “Arzúa” (Fallos A. 438. XLV, March 2, 2011), where the Court stated that the dismissal of a direct appeal on the basis of an “eleven lines in excess of the cap” represents a procedural overflow. Hence, the majority opinion held that the matters subject to the appeal belong to a “family of precedents” whereby the appellant’s arguments have already prevailed. The plaintiff was seeking for an economic compensation.

As we can see, the exception provided by Section 11 has been applied on many different grounds. Hence, current and future Federal Supreme Court rulings must be taken into account regarding Rule 4/2007.