Grupo Clarín S.A. v. Poder Ejecutivo Nacional
Closed Expands Expression
Press / Newspapers
Declaratory Relief
G. 451. XLIX
Argentina, Latin-America and Caribbean
Administrative Law, Constitutional Law
Licensing / Media Regulation
License, Media Diversity, Media Ownership, Discrimination, Media Pluralism
The Argentine Media Law, which prohibited the monopolization of licenses and particularly affected Grupo Clarin, the main media outlet of the government's opposition group, was found not to be discriminatory.
Grupo Clarin brought this case against the Argentine government, arguing that the recently passed Ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual (Media Law) was unconstitutional. Because the Media Law would restrict the number of licenses allowed per company, Grupo Clarin argued that it went against its property rights, discriminatorily affecting its sustainability and indirectly restricting its right to freedom of expression.
The case gained notoriety because Grupo Clarin was the primary media outlet speaking out against the government and would have been the main company affected by the implementation of the Media Law.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Argentina, which determined that the Media Law was not unconstitutional. The Court reached this decision after considering several key points. First, the Court found that Grupo Clarin was unable to prove that its sustainability was at risk. Next, the Court stated that there is no right to the preservation of a certain juridical order or state of the law. Then, the Court clarified that the Media Law would not affect Grupo Clarin alone, but would be applied throughout the nation. Finally, the Court affirmed that the social facet of freedom of expression and information is a matter that the government has a direct interest in protecting and, therefore, held that passing a law against a monopolized media was legitimately directed to that end.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the acquired rights of Grupo Clarin, in regard to the licenses it already possessed, should be dealt with during the implementation of the Media Law through proper compensation. The Justices also indicated, in relation to the highly controverted status of the case, that the democratic and correct implementation of the Media Law would necessarily include clear, fair, and equal treatment in regards to the distribution of state advertisement, subsidies, and direction from the relevant authority.
Expands Expression
This decision has been analyzed in two ways. On the one hand, it provides sound grounds against the monopolization of the media, thus furthering freedom of expression. On the other hand, the decision was unexpected locally and criticized by some who viewed it as the Supreme Court's support of the Argentine government over its opposition in the media.
Related International and/or regional laws
ICCPR, art. 19
UDHR, art. 19
ACHR, art. 13
OAS, Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, art. IX (1948)
OAS, Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, art. XXXIII (1948)
IACtHR, The Last Temptation of Christ, ser. C No. 73 (2001)
IACtHR, Bronstein v. Peru, ser. C No. 74 (2001)
IACtHR, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, ser. C No. 107 (2004)
IACtHR, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, ser. C No. 111 (2004)
IACtHR, Tristán Donoso v. Panama, Series C No. 193 (2009)
IACtHR, Kimel v. Argentina, ser. C No. 177 (2008)
IACtHR, Apitz Barbera v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 182 (2008)
IACtHR, Ríos v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 194 (2009)
IACtHR, Perozo v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 195 (2009)
IACtHR, Fontevecchia y D'Amico v. Argentina, ser. C No. 238 (2011)
ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, App. No. 9815/82 (1986)
IACmHR, Granier v. Venezuela, Report No. 112/12, Case 12.828 (11/09/2012)
IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, ser. A No. 5 (1985)
IACmHR, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (2000)
Rep., OAS, Annual Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (2004)
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Joint Declaration on Diversity in Broadcasting (12/07/2007)
IACmHR, Freedom of Expression Standards for Free and Inclusive Broadcasting, CIDH/RELE/INF.3/09 (12/30/2009)
Arg., Const. Nac. Article 14
Arg., Const. Nac. art. 17
Arg., Law No 26.522
Arg., Sup., Editorial Río Negro S.A. v. Neuquén, Fallos: 330:3908 (2007)
Arg., Sup., Indalia Ponzetti de Balbín v. Editorial Atlántida S.A., Fallos: 306:1892 (1984)
Arg., Sup., Julio César Campillay v. La Razón, Fallos: 308:789 (1986)
Arg., Sup., Jorge Antonio Vago v. Ediciones de la Urraca S.A., Fallos: 314:1517 (1991)
Arg., Sup., Manuel Eduardo Abad, Fallos: 315:632 (1992)
Arg., Sup., Miguel Angel Ekmekdjián v. Gerardo Sofovich, Fallos: 315:1492 (1992)
Arg., Sup., La Nación S.A., Fallos: 316:2845 (1993)
Arg., Sup., Juan José Ramos v. Radio Belgrano, Fallos: 319:3428 (1996)
Arg., Sup., Emisiones Platenses S.A., Fallos: 320:1191 (1997)
Arg., Sup., José Angel Patitó v. Diario La Nación, Fallos: 331:1530 (2008)
Arg., Sup., El Jacaranda S.A v. Estado Nacional, Fallos: 328:2654 (2005)
Arg., Sup., Asociación Mutual Carlos Mujica v. Estado Nacional, Fallos: 326:3142 (2003)
Arg., Sup., Fiscal General v. Manuel Argerich, Fallos: 1:130 (1864)
Arg., Sup., La Prensa S.A., Fallos: 310:1715 (1987)
Arg., Sup., Horacio Verbitsky, Fallos: 312:916 (1989)
Arg., Sup., Flavio Arístides Tavares, Fallos: 315:1699 (1992)
Arg., Sup., María Romilda Servini de Cubría, Fallos: 315:1943 (1992)
Arg., Sup., Federico Gutheim v. Juan Alemann, Fallos: 316:703 (1993)
Arg., Sup., Antonio Pérez Arriaga v. Arte Gráfica Editorial Argentina S.A., Fallos: 316:1623 (1993)
Arg., Sup., Horacio Conesa Mones Ruiz v. Diario Pregón, Fallos: 319:459 (1996)
Arg., Sup., Carlos Alberto Álvarez, Fallos: 319:585
Arg., Sup., Joaquín Miguel Morales Solá s/ injurias, Fallos: 319:2741 (1996)
Arg., Sup., Tele Cable Color S.A. v. COMFER resoluciones 179/94 y 1208/94, Fallos: 320:1022 (1997)
Arg., Sup., Oscar Raúl Pandolfi v. Julio Raúl Rajneri, Fallos: 320: 1272 (1997)
Arg., Sup., Bernardo Neustadt, Fallos: 321:479 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Domagoj Antonio Petric v. Diario Página 12, Fallos: 321:885 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Horacio Bernardo Rozenblum v. Constancio Carlos Vigil, Fallos: 321:2314 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Domingo Felipe Cavallo, Fallos: 321:2617 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Eduardo Menem v. Tomas Sanz, Fallos: 321:2848 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Maria Julia Alsogaray, Fallos: 321:3404 (1998)
Arg., Sup., Arnaldo Luis Bruno v. La Nación S.A., Fallos: 324:2419 (2001)
Arg., Sup., Ricardo Juan Cossio v. Horacio Viqueira, Fallos: 327:138 (2004)
Arg., Sup., Norberto Mario Oyarbide v. Marcela Tauro, Fallos: 330:2168 (2007)
Arg., Sup., Jorge Ángel Brugo v. Jorge Lanata, Fallos: 332:2559 (2009)
Arg., Sup., Leopoldo Felipe Melo v. Luis Miguel Majul, Fallos: 334:1722
Arg., Sup., Bourdieu v. Municipalidad de la Capital Federal Publicado, Fallos: 145:307 (1925)
Arg., Sup., Jorge Eric Dahlgren v. Raúl Edgardo Cáceres, Fallos: 319:2925 (1996)
Arg., Sup., Máximo Ezequiel de Gainza, Fallos: 320:985 (1997)
Arg., Sup., Carlos Manuel Ramón Acuña, Fallos: 319:2959 (1996)
Other national standards, law or jurisprudence
U.S., Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)
U.S., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
U.S., Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
U.S., Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
U.S., Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
The Supreme Court of Argentina decides cases on an individual basis, and its case law does not create binding precedents. However, the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and, as such, its decisions are highly persuasive.
http://www.infojus.gob.ar/jurisprudencia/NV6327-grupo_poder_accion-federal-2013.htm?1
Taos Turner and Ken Parks, Argentine Court Clears Media Breakup, Wall Street Journal (10/29/2013)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579165601176901802
Guido Nejamkis and Anthony Esposito, Argentina's Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Media Law, Reuters (10/29/2013)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-argentina-clarin-court-idUSBRE99S0U820131029
Commercial Speech, Content Regulation / Censorship, Licensing / Media Regulation
Irwin toy ltd. v. Quebec
Children, Media Regulation
Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests, Licensing / Media Regulation
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v. Public Prosecutor
License, Public Order
Thailand: The Revocation of License to Broadcast of Peace TV
Press Freedom, Thailand
Content Regulation / Censorship, Licensing / Media Regulation
Brazil: New Law on the Right of Reply Puts News Entities at Risk