deadlines

Driving a vehicle that is not your own is a much more common situation than it seems in Mexico and, in legal terms, does not represent any inconvenience as long as the requirements to circulate are met. The problem arose when the driver, without being the owner, received a fine: the big question was when the deadline to file an amparo began to run. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has finally resolved this issue with a ruling that for years generated different criteria between courts and that now seeks to give certainty to an everyday practice. The origin of the problem. The courts did not have a unified criterion on when the deadline to promote a protection trial against a traffic ticket imposed on a person other than the owner of the vehicle. While some considered notification to the driver sufficient to activate this legal calculation, others warned that this circumstance did not guarantee that the owner had real knowledge of the sanction. This disparity generated practical uncertainty and could leave without defense those who did not even know that an infringement existed, which led the highest court to establish a clear criterion. The rule that sets the start of the term. The SCJN’s decision is based on a simple idea, but with important effects in practice: no one can lose the opportunity to defend themselves for a notification they never received. For this reason, the Plenary established as a mandatory criterion that, when the fine is imposed on a person other than the owner of the vehicle, the period to promote indirect protection must be counted from the moment in which the owner has direct, exact and complete knowledge of the sanction, or appears to be aware of it. Here we must highlight a very important point: it is not enough to hand the ticket to the driver. The real benefit for whoever owns the vehicle. As we can see, in practice, the resolution does not eliminate fines or modify the responsibility of the person who commits the driving violation, but it guarantees that the owner has an effective possibility of defending himself. This is especially relevant in everyday situations, such as borrowed cars, family vehicles, or units used by employees, where the penalty can be imposed without the owner being present. The Court also stated that the joint liability between owner and driver in the face of traffic violations, that is, both can legally respond for the sanction, cannot nullify the right of the former to file an amparo lawsuit within the legal period. From formal notice to real knowledge. In some administrative procedures, the authority you can take the notification for granted without direct contact with the owner, which opens the risk that the deadline to challenge begins to run before he or she finds out about the existence of the fine. The amparo trial, as a way to question acts of authority that may violate rights, depends precisely on that temporal calculation in order to be exercised effectively. With its resolution, the Supreme Court shifts the center of gravity from the mere formality of the notice to the certainty that the person really knows about the violation. Key question. How the date on which the owner became aware of the fine is determined. In an amparo trial, that moment must be proven in the file. To do this, the notification records addressed to the owner and other verifiable resources are reviewed. In this context, everything indicates that the interested person himself can provide documentation that supports the moment in which he became aware of the fine, precisely to support the opportunity with which he promotes the protection. What doesn’t change. The fines remain in force, the administrative procedures are not altered and the driver’s responsibility remains the same. What the ruling provides is a clarification with concrete effects: the calculation of the period does not depend on a notification beyond the direct knowledge of the owner. Now it remains to be seen to what extent its practical application manages to reduce the usual conflicts around traffic fines. Images | Juan Luis Alejos In Xataka | “Chinese money is expensive”: Peru gave the keys to a giant door to China that the US now wants to blow up