The amicus curiae presentation made by CELS in a federal public interest case was rejected by the lower court and by the Appeals Chamber. His request to be considered a friend of the court reached the Supreme Court, so we request that the case be opened to amicus.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.
On September 10, we presented a request to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to open the call for amicus curiae in the case “Argentine Chamber of Medicinal Specialties and another against the National State Ministry of Industry of the Nation and others s / Nullity administrative act ”. In said process, where the controversy concerns the regulation of the conditions for the patentability of chemical-pharmaceutical inventions, the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) requested participation as “amicus curiae”. This in the understanding that there is an intimate relationship between the right to health, and access to medicines under conditions of equality, and the criteria for patentability. However, this request was denied both in the first instance and in the Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber.
The rejection was based on the absence of regulation of the procedural figure in lower instances than the Supreme Court and the lack of expertise of the CELS on the merits of the case. However, the jurisprudential antecedents show that this is not an impediment to admit the participation of the friends of the court. On the other hand, the reason why CELS requests participation in the cause lies in the public interest and the fundamental rights committed, a subject in which it has a recognized track record.
In our request we state that the intervention of the amicus curiae can contribute to an improvement in the jurisdictional activity of matters of public interest and to a democratization of the judicial debate. The denial of CELS as amicus curiae in all procedural instances obstructs the possibility of reaching a more democratic and transparent decision.
The decision made by the Court in this instance may mark a jurisprudential guide for similar cases. That is why this presentation constitutes a good opportunity for you to establish a broad criterion for the admission of this figure and for citizen participation in judicial debates of public interest to begin to be the rule and stop being the exception.
Mayca Balaguer, email@example.com