Telesud

• Jurisdicción: Argentina
• Emisor: Federal Court of Appeals (Argentina)
• Fecha: 18 Abril 1985

Argentina, National Federal Administrative Court of Appeal of Buenos Aires (Fourth Chamber).

(Hutchinson, Galli and Miguens, Judges)

Telesud

Human rights Right to a hearing Independent tribunal established by law American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 8(1) Whether States required to legislate to guarantee right

Relationship of international law and municipal law Treaties American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Action to enforce right to hearing Whether provisions of Convention directly applicable

Treaties Effect in municipal law American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Ratification by Argentina Whether prevailing over conflicting municipal legislation Whether rights enforceable in absence of municipal legislation to give effect to rights under Convention The law of Argentina

Summary: The facts:The applicant sought to recover interest charged for an alleged delay in the payment of taxes. He challenged the principle under Argentinian tax law that the amount of a customs assessment should always be paid before it could be contested. An application to the Fiscal Court was rejected for lack of competence. The applicant appealed.

Held:The appeal was dismissed and the case was remitted to the competent Commercial Court for consideration of the merits.

(1) An international treaty was incorporated into domestic law by virtue of its ratification by the appropriate constitutional procedure. Those of its norms which were intended to enter into force in the legal order of each State then became immediately effective without the necessity for any other act.

(2) The equal rank attributed to international treaties and laws, once the treaty in question had been duly ratified, necessarily required acceptance of the derogation from or amendment of any prior legislation, to the extent that it conflicted with the norms established by the treaty.

(3) The principle of pay and recover, previously applied by the Supreme Court, had been abrogated by Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights which was directly applicable. It gave every person, prior to the imposition of any sanction against them, the right to a hearing before an independent tribunal established by law for the determination of their rights of a fiscal nature.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:

I. The Court of First Instance held that it lacked competence to decide the case at issue

II. In his written submissions the complainant contends that the Fiscal Court [of...