Skip to main content

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Argentina

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 39))

  • 667 Accesses

Abstract

“Deference” is not a term which is found in the legal vocabulary of Argentinean law. However, the judicial review of administrative actions have had different stages. From denying control to having a judicial control with all the guarantees of defense in court. At present, the main issue of discussion is about determining the scope of the review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    It can be consulted in http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htm. Accessed 12 Oct 2018.

  2. 2.

    This legal text can be consulted in: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/115000-119999/116296/texact.htm. Accessed 12 Oct 2018.

  3. 3.

    Such as: National Gas Regulation Entity (Law N° 24,076), National Energy Regulatory Entity (Law N° 24,065), Nuclear Regulatory Authority (Law N° 24,804), National Communications Entity—ENACOM—Decree 267/15, National Entity of Water Infrastructure for Sanitation (Law N° 24,583), among others. (These legal texts can be consulted in: http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/.)

  4. 4.

    Aberastury (2006), p. 45; Cassagne (2004), p. 51; Mairal (1984), p. 492; Tawil (1993), p. 146.

  5. 5.

    The rulings from the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice of Nation are mentioned as Fallos (rulings) where the first number refers to the volume and the second to the page. They can be consulted in: http://www.csjn.gov.ar/.

  6. 6.

    Lopez de Reyes v/ National Institute of Social Welfare, Fallos (rulings): 244:548 (Judgement of 9 September 1959).

  7. 7.

    Fallos (rulings): 237: 636.

  8. 8.

    Coviello (2005), p. 429.

  9. 9.

    http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/?page_id=112. Accessed 12 Oct 2018.

  10. 10.

    http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/?page_id=112. Accessed 12 Oct 2018.

  11. 11.

    Fallos (rulings): 247:121.

  12. 12.

    Angel Estrada and Co. S.A. v/ Resolution N° 71/96—Sec. Energy and Ports. Fallos (rulings): 328:651 (Judgment of 5 April 2005).

  13. 13.

    It can be consulted in http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=464. Accessed 12 Oct 2018.

  14. 14.

    Fallos (rulings): 321:776.

  15. 15.

    Fallos (rulings): 328:651.

  16. 16.

    Pedro Inchauspe Brothers v/ National Meat Board. National Meat Board v/ Baurin, Juan J. National Meat Board v/ Corbett Brothers. Fallos (rulings): 199: 483 (Judgment of 1 January 1944).

  17. 17.

    Fallos (rulings): 248:800 (Judgment of 28/12/1960).

  18. 18.

    The Court has defined arbitrariness as the evidence that what was resolved is unsustainable and constitutes a means to frustrate a right, consid.9°. See Fallos (rulings): 194:220.

  19. 19.

    Fallos (rulings): 327:3677.

  20. 20.

    Fallos (rulings) 328:1146.

  21. 21.

    Fallos: (rulings) 330:4866.

  22. 22.

    Fallos (rulings): 335:197.

References

  • Aberastury P (2006) La Justicia Administrativa. Lexis Nexis, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch JT (1951) Tribunales Judiciales o Tribunales Administrativos para juzgar a la administración pública. Victor P. De Zavalia, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassagne JC (2004) El acceso a la Justicia Administrativa. Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires. Lexis Nexis 2004:51–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Coviello Pedro JJ (2005) ¿Qué es la jurisdicción primaria? Su aplicación a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (a propósito de su invocación en el caso “Angel Estrada”). Revista El Derecho 2005:429–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Mairal HA (1984) Control Judicial de la Administración Pública. Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawil G (1993) Administración y Justicia. De Palma, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Aberastury .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Aberastury, P. (2019). Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Argentina. In: Zhu, G. (eds) Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31538-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31539-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics