Newsletter injunctions pipelines_mexico_2012
2
FRANCISCO I. MADERO 883, TERCER PISO MEXICALI, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 21100 MÉXICO TEL. (686) 552-5555 FAX (686) 552-5757 WWW.DHA.COM.MX BOULEVARD AGUA CALIENTE 4558 PLAZA AGUA CALIENTE, PISO 18, SUITE 1804 TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 22420 MÉXICO TEL. (664) 686-4848 FAX (664) 686-4877 AVENIDA CONSTELACIÓN 2938 FRACCIONAMIENTO JARDINES DEL BOSQUE GUADALAJARA, JALISCO, 34520 MÉXICO TEL. (33) 3121-5110 FAX (33) 3121-5111 By: Jorge E. de Hoyos Walther [email protected] A RECENT DECISION FROM THE MEXICAN SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER STATE COURTS MAY ISSUE INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE OPENING OF GAS STORAGE FACILITIES RELATED TO THE GAS PIPELINES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS. Most state’s procedural codes provide for rules to issue injunctive relief against the construction of new buildings or an order to demolish old buildings that are considered hazardous. From a reading of the decision, private citizens had been filing to obtain injunctive relief to halt the construction of gas storage and distribution facilities in Mexico. While some Federal Circuit courts upheld the constitutionality of having State courts issue these injunctions, other Circuit Courts had been refusing to confirm the constitutionality of their issuance, because this would constitute an infringement of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Commission. In order to clarify the Law, the Mexican Supreme Court seized jurisdiction to decide which view should prevail. The Supreme Court found that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Regulatory agencies. In its’ decision, the Supreme Court found that injunctions to halt the construction of hazardous buildings were meant to address disputes between private parties provided their activities does not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative authorities. According to the Supreme Court, when a construction of a project is based on an authorization issued by the Secretariat of Energy through its’ Energy Regulatory Commission, for the transportation, storage and distribution of natural, it is clear that said agency issued said permit based on its own findings that the project would satisfy a public need, and that it was authorized conditioned upon the licensee’s satisfaction of specific safety requirements, which the authority must ascertain are all met. Under this scenario, it is not legally valid for a private party, by way of a court issued injunction, to halt these types of projects, because this falls without its jurisdiction.
-
Upload
de-hoyos-y-aviles -
Category
Documents
-
view
72 -
download
0
Transcript of Newsletter injunctions pipelines_mexico_2012
FRANCISCO I. MADERO 883, TERCER PISO
MEXICALI, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 21100 MÉXICO TEL. (686) 552-5555 FAX (686) 552-5757
WWW.DHA.COM.MX
BOULEVARD AGUA CALIENTE 4558
PLAZA AGUA CALIENTE, PISO 18, SUITE 1804
TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 22420 MÉXICO
TEL. (664) 686-4848 FAX (664) 686-4877
AVENIDA CONSTELACIÓN 2938
FRACCIONAMIENTO JARDINES DEL BOSQUE
GUADALAJARA, JALISCO, 34520 MÉXICO
TEL. (33) 3121-5110 FAX (33) 3121-5111
By: Jorge E. de Hoyos Walther [email protected]
A RECENT DECISION FROM THE MEXICAN SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER STATE COURTS MAY ISSUE INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE OPENING OF GAS STORAGE FACILITIES RELATED TO THE GAS PIPELINES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS. Most state’s procedural codes provide for rules to issue injunctive relief against the
construction of new buildings or an order to demolish old buildings that are considered
hazardous. From a reading of the decision, private citizens had been filing to obtain
injunctive relief to halt the construction of gas storage and distribution facilities in Mexico.
While some Federal Circuit courts upheld the constitutionality of having State courts issue
these injunctions, other Circuit Courts had been refusing to confirm the constitutionality of
their issuance, because this would constitute an infringement of the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Energy Regulatory Commission.
In order to clarify the Law, the Mexican Supreme Court seized jurisdiction to decide which
view should prevail. The Supreme Court found that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Federal Regulatory agencies. In its’ decision, the Supreme Court found that injunctions to
halt the construction of hazardous buildings were meant to address disputes between private
parties provided their activities does not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative
authorities. According to the Supreme Court, when a construction of a project is based on
an authorization issued by the Secretariat of Energy through its’ Energy Regulatory
Commission, for the transportation, storage and distribution of natural, it is clear that said
agency issued said permit based on its own findings that the project would satisfy a public
need, and that it was authorized conditioned upon the licensee’s satisfaction of specific
safety requirements, which the authority must ascertain are all met. Under this scenario, it is
not legally valid for a private party, by way of a court issued injunction, to halt these types of
projects, because this falls without its jurisdiction.
FRANCISCO I. MADERO 883, TERCER PISO
MEXICALI, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 21100 MÉXICO TEL. (686) 552-5555 FAX (686) 552-5757
WWW.DHA.COM.MX
BOULEVARD AGUA CALIENTE 4558
PLAZA AGUA CALIENTE, PISO 18, SUITE 1804
TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 22420 MÉXICO
TEL. (664) 686-4848 FAX (664) 686-4877
AVENIDA CONSTELACIÓN 2938
FRACCIONAMIENTO JARDINES DEL BOSQUE
GUADALAJARA, JALISCO, 34520 MÉXICO
TEL. (33) 3121-5110 FAX (33) 3121-5111
Per articles 35 of the Regulations to Article 27 of the Constitution regarding Hydrocarbons
and article 11 of the Energy Regulatory Commission’s Law, this is the agency that is charged
with addressing any irregularity with regards to the issuance of a permit of this nature, by
way of a complaint, and to make an administrative ruling on the same.
For further information on this topic please contact Jorge E. de Hoyos Walther at De Hoyos y Aviles
by telephone (+52 686 552.55.55), fax (+52 686 552.57.57) or email [email protected]
