Event Summary
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ratified the jurisprudence that empowers the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to review decisions of the ordinary national justice system based in the city. This position, based on the Levinas case, implies that a local court can act as a “superior court” even in federal cases. The measure has provoked a strong rejection from broad sectors of the national judiciary and trade union and social organizations, which considered it unconstitutional and an attack on federalism. The ruling contradicts Law 24.588 (“Cafiero Law”), which protects national competences in Buenos Aires City. The Court’s resolution allows the judicial power in a jurisdiction permeable to local political pressures, with serious consequences for the guarantee of rights and access to justice in conditions of equality.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the interpretation that the Buenos Aires City Supreme Court can review national cases. This decision sets a better institutional precedent and allows cases such as that of Correo Argentino SA to be redirected through local channels , facilitating forum shopping practices. Various organizations and specialized media have denounced the regressiveness of this measure. There was also a strong institutional pronouncement : judges, prosecutors, chamber members and unions have massively opposed the measure.
The decision is particularly concerning considering that the courts in Buenos Aires City have a record of using the judicial system to restrict civil society and opposition voices. The Buenos Aires City justice system has historically been involved in defending the use of cyberpatrols . The ruling affects equity in access to justice, weakening fundamental rights such as due process and judicial independence. For CSOs, it implies the risk that key causes – linked to labor, economic or social rights – will be defined in politically aligned courts, without the minimum guarantees of impartiality. It also allows local courts to impose de facto judicial reforms, without public discussion or democratic representation. This weakens the capacity of civil society to influence the rules of the institutional game and limits control over decisions that affect fundamental rights. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system may deteriorate, and the risk of political instrumentalization of justice is critically increased.
Civil society demands legislative action on this judicial transfer and will document the impact of Levinas jurisprudence on sensitive cases and organize public awareness campaigns on the consequences of the ruling. Actions of CSOs – mainly trade union organizations and organizations of lawyers and magistrates – need to be reinforced.