The Supreme Court upheld the Government's DNU that allows the sale of land to foreigners

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation upheld the repeal of the Rural Land Law enacted by the national Government through article 154 of DNU 70/2023, by rejecting a lawsuit filed by the Center of Ex-Combatants of the Malvinas Islands (CECIM) of La Plata.

The highest court granted the appeal presented by the National State, overturned the ruling of the Federal Court of La Plata, and dismissed the lawsuit, considering that the association did not have standing to initiate the legal action.

The resolution was signed by judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti, who focused their analysis on a strictly procedural and constitutional issue: the absence of a specific case or controversy that would warrant the intervention of the Justice system.

The Court set a limit on judicial encroachment on decisions of other powers

The CECIM's argument sought to declare unconstitutional the repeal of Law 26.737, which established restrictions on the ownership and possession of rural land by foreigners.

The Federal Court of La Plata had accepted the argument and declared the unconstitutionality of article 154 of DNU 70/2023. However, the Supreme Court considered that the association could not judicially represent an alleged general harm to territorial sovereignty.

The judges emphasized that, although the Constitution allows for certain collective actions, the existence of a concrete harm and a real judicial controversy remains essential. In this regard, they pointed out that courts cannot become venues for conducting abstract reviews of norms that are not linked to a specific case.

The Court questioned the use of judicial processes without a concrete controversy

One of the central points of the ruling was the interpretation of territorial sovereignty. The Court maintained that it is a competence of the State, and therefore cannot be considered a “collective good” in the terms used to enable a collective action.

Thus, the highest court concluded that there was also no collective incidence right that would allow CECIM to assume representation of the alleged affected interest.

The decision also included a warning about those rulings from lower instances that, according to the judges, admit legal representations “notoriously distant” from the jurisprudence of the Court itself.

For the highest court, allowing cases to proceed without a concrete judicial cause could undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers, as it would imply that Justice intervenes in matters that belong to political authorities without a specific conflict to resolve.

The Court clarified that it did not declare DNU 70/2023 constitutional

The ruling also has a precise scope. The Supreme Court did not declare the constitutionality of the repeal of the Rural Land Law nor did it conduct a substantive analysis of DNU 70/2023.

The judges limited themselves to determining that CECIM was not authorized to promote the action and that there was no concrete judicial case that justified the intervention of the courts.

Therefore, the resolution overturned the decision of the Federal Court of La Plata and rejected the lawsuit, leaving article 154 of DNU 70/2023 in effect.

The decision thus represents a pronouncement on the limits of judicial intervention and on the necessity that any challenge to a norm before Justice be linked to a concrete conflict, preventing the courts from being used as an instance of abstract review of decisions made by the powers of the State.