CABA Superior Court First, Argentine Supreme Court Later

1. Introduction
    

The relationship between the local Courts of the City of Buenos Aires (CABA) and the National Courts seated in that City has been the subject of several debates within the framework of Argentine federalism. The 1994 amendment to the Argentine Constitution recognized CABA’s autonomy, with its own powers of jurisdiction, as well as the other provincial states. As a result, the CABA Constitution empowered the local Government to agree with the Federal Government on the transfer of the National Courts located in CABA to the CABA’s Judiciary. However, the transfer of competences during the last decades has been delayed.

Thus, today coexist two different non-overlapping jurisdictions within CABA that are destined to merge: the National Courts with seat in the city, which act in criminal and correctional, civil, commercial, and labor matters, where the Courts of Appeals were considered the “superior court” for the purposes of article 14 of Law 48[1] until December 27, 2024; and CABA's local Courts, which act in criminal and misdemeanor matters, tax administrative litigation, and consumer relations, among others, where the superior court of justice (TSJ) is the “superior court” for the purposes of article 14 of Law 48.

In the judgment rendered on December 27, 2024 in the case “Ferrari v. Levinas,” the Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN) addressed an issue of critical relevance for those who litigate in the jurisdictions that co-exist in CABA: for the purposes of article 14 of Law 48, which entitles the intervention of the CSJN, who is the “superior court” for the ordinary courts seated in CABA?? The National Courts of Appeals with ordinary jurisdiction seated in CABA (whose rulings, prior to the precedent under review, were revised by the CSJN when the applicable requirements were met) or the CABA Superior Court (TSJ)?
 

2. Background

Maria Alicia Ferrari and Pablo Augusto Ferrari filed an ordinary action for restitution of assets against Gabriel Isaias Levinas, in re “Ferrari, María Alicia y otro c/ Levinas, Gabriel Isaias s/ rendición de cuentas,” before the National Court of First Instance in Civil Matters No. 75. In the complaint, the plaintiffs explained they were declared sole and universal heirs of the artist Leon Cesar Ferrari del Pardo and, as such, requested the restitution of 11 works of art that Leon Ferrari had loaned the defendant.

On May 31, 2018, Chamber “A” of the National Court of Appeals in Civil Matters affirmed the ruling of the lower court that had allowed the complaint. The defendant challenged the Chamber's decision by filing these appeals:
 

1. A federal extraordinary appeal, denied by the Chamber on the grounds that it “dealt with questions of fact and common law, unrelated to the attempted remedy.” As a result, the defendant filed a direct appeal before the CSJN.
2. An unconstitutionality appeal before the TSJ under the terms of articles 27 and 28 of CABA Law 402 and of article 113 of the CABA Constitution, which the Chamber also denied on the grounds that “it was not consistent with the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code of the Nation, which governs the matters heard in the jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the defendant filed a direct appeal before the TSJ under the terms of articles 33 and 34 of Law 402.

The TSJ upheld the direct appeal and annulled the Chamber’s resolution that had denied the appeal of unconstitutionality. The Chamber rejected the intervention of the TSJ in the case. However, the TSJ maintained its position and referred the proceedings to the CSJN to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction in accordance with article 24, paragraph 7 of Decree-Law 1285/1958.
 

3. CSJN Ruling
    

The CSJN, by majority, concluded that the TSJ is the court with jurisdiction to hear the extraordinary appeals filed before the ordinary National Courts of Appeals seated in CABA, and that such court is the one that must “concentrate the jurisdictional powers on local and ordinary law, and set itself up as the superior court of the cases when there is a federal issue, under the terms of article 14 of law 48.” In other words, for the purposes of its own jurisdiction, the CSJN decided that it will consider the National Courts and Courts of Appeals seated in that City as already transferred to the CABA’s Judiciary.

In its decision, the CSJN emphasized that, in view of the delay of the Federal State and the CABA Government in moving forward with the transfer of the National Courts to the CABA Judicial Branch 30 years after the 1994 constitutional amendment, it was appropriate for the CSJN to “continue adapting its actions to those imposed by the text of the Argentine Constitution.”

Accordingly, the CSJN applied to the specific case the doctrine it had established in several precedents (among them, “Strada,” “Di Mascio,” “Corrales,” “José Mármol,” “Bazán,” and “Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires”) to remove “CABA’s inequality or asymmetry” regarding the provinces with respect to the limits to the CSJN’s intervention “in the interpretation carried out by the local courts of the rules of local or ordinary laws.”

The CSJN stated that this decision—limited to a strictly procedural precaution regarding the superior court of the case under the terms of article 14 of law 48—does not affect the transitory continuity of the ordinary National Courts seated in CABA in the structure of the Argentine Judicial Branch until the transfer the Argentine Constitution mandated becomes effective. In this sense, the CSJN urged the competent authorities to adapt the relevant laws to the constitutional mandate.

Likewise, as to the temporal validity of this new doctrine, the CSJN clarified that it will apply “to cases pending decision in which a conflict similar to the one at hand has already arisen, and to appeals against judgments of national courts—with ordinary jurisdiction— that were notified after this decision.”

In dissent, Justice Rosenkrantz warned that designating the TSJ as the court of appeals of national courts implies an institutional redesign of the Argentine federal system.
 

4. Conclusion
    

This recent CSJN precedent marks a transcendental procedural milestone in terms of appeals against rulings issued by the National Courts of Appeals with ordinary jurisdiction seated in CABA that are notified after December 27, 2024. Based on this precedent, it is possible that the immediate adaptation of the procedural strategy in ongoing court cases may be required.

Since this decision introduces new procedural parameters in the relationship between the National Justice and the CABA one, it will be essential to observe its implementation in practice. Among other aspects, it is worth considering how the problems arising from the differences between the computerized case management systems will be resolved and what impact the use of different procedural rules will have on the processing of cases.