The Federal Administrative Court No. 7 rejected a precautionary measure requested by the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) in the context of the case brought against the Government of Javier Milei to stop the application of articles 90 and 91 of the Labor Modernization Act and the agreement that establishes the transfer of the judicial function in labor matters to the area of Labor Justice of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
The resolution was signed by Judge Enrique Lavié Pico, the head of that court, who considered that it was not appropriate to grant the precautionary measure requested by the union central.
The magistrate had previously intervened in judicial debates linked to reforms promoted by the national government: at the beginning of 2024, he rejected two amparos filed against DNU 70/2023.
The CGT.
The presentation of the CGT was made on March 6, through an amparo action in which it requested the declaration of nullity and constitutional invalidity of the above-mentioned articles of Law 27,802, published in the Official
Gazette that same day.
In that letter, the labor union specifically requested an innovative precautionary measure to suspend the application of these provisions and the transfer agreement until a final judgment is issued.
In addition, the CGT requested that the report provided for in article 4 of Law 26,854, a regulation that regulates precautionary measures when the National State is a party to a judicial proceeding, be dispensed with.
In its judicial presentation, the trade union argued that the right invoked is supported by various legal omissions and alleged violations of constitutional guarantees. He also stated that the requested precautionary measure would not affect the public interest nor would it entail expenditures for the State
. President Javier Milei.
The Justice ruling
However, when analyzing the request, Judge Lavié Pico explained that innovative precautionary measures have an exceptional scope, since they modify the state of fact or law in force before there is a final judicial decision. As detailed in its resolution, this type of measure implies an anticipation of the possible final ruling and, for that reason, their granting must be
restrictive.
The magistrate also noted that the precautionary measure requested by the CGT coincides in fact with the main objective of the filed lawsuit, which reinforces the need to apply strict criteria when evaluating it. In his ruling, he held that the purpose of precautionary measures is to guarantee the effectiveness of the future judgment, but it is not appropriate to issue preventive decisions whose result is equivalent to
that of the final decision.
In this case, the judge considered that the proposal exceeds the conservative purpose of this type of procedural tools and that, based on the elements provided in the file, the danger in the delay justifying its granting is not verified.
The resolution also emphasized that the procedural route chosen by the CGT is of a very summary nature and allows for a quick resolution on the merits of the conflict. In this context, the magistrate concluded that there is no irreparable harm that would make a future sentence illusory, which is why he decided to reject the requested precautionary measure
