SCJN Validates Economic Competition Powers and Administrative Responsibilities

According to a press release from the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) dated July 09, 2026, the Plenary has validated significant resolutions concerning economic competition and administrative responsibilities.

Validity in Economic Competition and Maximum Prices

The SCJN determined the validity of Article 96 of the Federal Law on Economic Competition, Article 82 of the Hydrocarbons Law, and Article 77 of the Regulations for the activities referred to in Title Third of said law. These regulations, which govern the investigation procedure in competition matters and the powers to establish maximum prices for hydrocarbons, were deemed compatible with the human right to free competition. The Court resolved an "amparo" lawsuit filed by two companies against an opinion from the then COFECE which determined the absence of competition conditions in markets for the distribution of liquefied petroleum gas to end-users, denying the existence of a legislative omission and reaffirming the constitutional powers of Congress to regulate maximum prices and eliminate barriers to competition.

For businesses, this resolution reaffirms legal certainty regarding the powers of authorities in economic competition matters, especially in regulated sectors such as energy. It is crucial for companies in these markets to understand the scope of these regulations to ensure compliance and design appropriate corporate strategies.

Notifications in Administrative Responsibilities

In another matter, the Plenary validated Article 209, section II, third paragraph, of the General Law on Administrative Responsibilities. This provision regulates notifications during the resolution stage of administrative responsibility procedures. The SCJN dismissed the argument of a former CFE public servant who alleged a violation of due process by not requiring personal notification of the expediente's reception before the Tribunal ruled on its jurisdiction.

The Court explained that the regulatory design distinguishes between investigative, substantiating, and resolving authorities, and that the obligation for personal notification arises once the Tribunal accepts its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it specified that a declaration of incompetence does not lead to defenselessness, but rather ensures that the procedure continues before the legally competent authority, strengthening legal certainty.

This validation is relevant for any individual or entity that may face an administrative responsibility procedure, as it clarifies the timing and methods of notification, reinforcing the guarantees of due process and legal certainty in these procedures.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Each case must be analyzed individually.