THE NEW AMPARO TRIAL JURISDICTION REPORT: MEXICO
Yuri Vazquez Becerril, Coca & Becerril
Derived from the need to have more laws that
respond to the
current demands and requirements of Mexico, in 1999 the idea of transforming the Amparo trial—brought to us by Manuel Cresencio Rejon and Mariano Otero in 1840—came up in order to safeguard governed citizens against acts of authority.
The main objective of an Amparo trial, as currently established in our national legislation, is to restore circumstances to how they were before the violation of the authority. In this sense, any governed citizen (individual and/or moral person) that files an Amparo trial, and who obtains a favourable decision, will alone be able to enjoy the reinstatement of its individual rights that were violated in the first place. This is what is known in law as a principle by the aggrieved party.
However, nowadays, many legal actors have agreed that repairing unfair and illegal acts of the administrative, judicial or military authorities through an Amparo decision is not enough because, as described, this decision will only and exclusively protect the individual and/or moral person who originally filed the Amparo suit.
Therefore there is a need to provide Amparo decisions with erga omnes effects, which means that, for example, when a law is considered unconstitutional by a judge, it is not only the person who filed the Amparo suit that benefits from constitutional protection. Because the whole law is unconstitutional, the same protection should be applied to any individual and/or moral person through a general declaration of unconstitutionality.
Another situation that led to the creation of new Amparo legislation is the need to stop the multiple acts of authoritarianism that some authorities, on occasion, commit against some individuals, and especially against their human rights.
In this regard, recent reforms to the Mexican Constitution have established that the state is obliged to be efficient in its functions, but with absolute respect for human rights, which now find support in the Mexican Constitution and in the international treaties of which Mexico is part. Intellectual property rights are now considered, formally speaking, as a part of human rights .
The importance of these issues is clear, but most important are the implications of fact and law that in IP matters will result from the implementation of the new law of Amparo, once it is approved by the Mexican Congress.
64 World Intellectual Property Review July/August 2012
Any individual and/or moral person will be able to file an Amparo suit without exhausting other instances, if he considers that his IP rights are being violated in a direct way.
In the author’s opinion, it will be the task of the parties, judges and litigators to form precedents from this new law of Amparo, allowing better day-to-day enforcement of IP interests.
Yuri Vazquez is a litigation attorney at Becerril, Coca & Becerril, SC. He can be contacted at:
yvazquez@bcb.com.mx .
www.worldipreview.com
“WHEN A LAW IS CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A JUDGE, IT IS NOT ONLY THE PERSON WHO FILED THE AMPARO SUIT THAT BENEFITS FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84