As a result of various administrative legal proceedings filed in relation to insurance by this Firm, together with De la Peza y Matuk (DPMA), the Seventh Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of the First Circuit recently set the following as precedent:
Period: Tenth Period
Registration: 160701
Instance: SEVENTH COLLEGIATE COURT IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Type of Decision: Isolated Decision
Source: Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette
Location: Book II, November 2011, Volume 1
Matter(s): Common
Thesis: I.7o.A.808 A (9a.)
Page 616
[TA]; 10a. Period; T.C.C.; S.J.F. and its Gazette; Book II, November 2011, Volume 1; Page 616
COMPETENCE TO HEAR THE AMPARO PROCEEDING FILED AGAIINST THE RULING ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION AND DEFENSE OF THE USERS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES DISMISSING AS EXTEMPORANEOUS A CLAIM. CORRESPONDS TO THE DISTRICT ADMINSITRATIVE JUDGES. From the content of articles 4, 5, 63, 65 and 68 of the Law for Protection and Defense of the User of Financial Services it is seen that the National Commission for the Protection and Defense of the Users of Financial Services (CONDUSEF) is a de-centralized public body with legal capacity and its own assets, that is responsible for the protection and defense of the rights and interests of the users in relation to the financial institutions; in addition, that the users can file their claims within the term of two years from when the generating act occurs or from the denial of the financial institution to satisfy the claims of the user, and that upon receiving a formulated claim, such commission must exhaust the conciliatory proceeding, which is complied with by summoning the parties to a hearing. In this regard, when in the constitutional proceeding the act claimed consists of a determination in which the CONDUSEF, based on cited article 65, dismisses as extemporaneous a claim filed by the complainant, it is evident that the constitutional dispute addresses aspects of the administrative law area, from which it is inferred that upon issuing the challenged act it acted in the scope of that area of the law, by supporting its determination in the mentioned law. Therefore, in accordance with section II of article 52 of the Organizational Law of the Federal Judicial Branch, it corresponds to the District Judges in Administrative Matters to hear the amparo proceeding filed against the mentioned ruling.
SEVENTH COLLEGIATE COURT IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Competence 7/2011. Arising between the Fourteenth District Court in Administrative Matters in the Federal District and the Fourth District Court in Civil Matters in the Federal District. August 10, 2011. Unanimous vote. Drafting judge: F. Javier Mijangos Navarro. Secretary: Juan Daniel Torres Arreola.
If you would like to learn more about this topic please contact Lic. Rafael Sámano: rsamano@samanosc.com.mx