The Court's Ruling
The Juzgado en lo Contencioso Administrativo N° 4 de La Plata, presided over by Judge Güendalina Sessarego, partially granted a precautionary measure filed by the Defensoría del Pueblo de la provincia de Buenos Aires. The ruling orders the national state to preserve all registry, cadastral and administrative information related to rural land in Buenos Aires that was compiled during the validity of Law 26.737 on Rural Lands, which was repealed by Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) 70/2023 signed by President Javier Milei. The judge declared herself incompetent to analyze the constitutionality of the DNU, considering that such a discussion belongs to the federal justice system, but she granted exceptional precautionary protection to prevent the loss of information deemed key for territorial and environmental planning during the transfer of the case.[S1]
The judicial decision obliges the Ministerio de Justicia de la Nación —or the corresponding organism— to report, within five days, up to what date the data of the Registro Nacional de Tierras Rurales were collected and updated, and also to conserve all records generated from the creation of the regime in 2011 until the last available update. It must also adopt the necessary measures to prevent the destruction, alteration or loss of that information while the case passes to federal jurisdiction. The case was promoted by the Buenos Aires ombudsman, Guido Lorenzino, who challenged article 154 of DNU 70/2023, through which the national government fully repealed the Land Law.[S1]
Arguments and Concerns
In his presentation, to which El Cronista had access, Lorenzino argued that the elimination of the regime not only voided restrictions on the acquisition of fields by foreigners but also the information system that allowed knowing the evolution of rural property. According to the claim, the threat lies not only in each land purchase operation but in the accumulation of transactions that could significantly modify the territorial structure without a state mechanism to monitor those changes. In that sense, the lawsuit specifically mentions the partidos of Campana and Zárate, where foreign ownership of rural land has an incidence above the provincial average.[S1]
The Defensoría stressed the need to preserve the information accumulated during the years in which Law 26.737 was in force. For the organism, having those records is relevant not only to know who the owners of the fields are but also for territorial and environmental planning in the province. It particularly pointed to the situation of Buenos Aires districts such as Campana and Zárate, where there is a significant concentration of land in the hands of foreign owners. In that context, it argued that the loss of information could hinder monitoring of the rural property structure and affect the tools available for land management.[S2]
Legal Basis and Next Steps
Although the judge understood that the analysis of the constitutional validity of the DNU must remain in the hands of the federal justice system, she held that there were sufficient reasons to adopt a precautionary measure. She highlighted that the possibility that, during the time required by the competent judge's intervention, losses of public information occur that cause irreparable harm justified urgent action. The magistrate emphasized that the purpose of the precautionary measure is not to restore the validity of the Land Law or suspend the DNU but to protect public information that could be indispensable for future state decisions.[S1]
The resolution also focuses on the environmental dimension of the conflict. The judge recalled that access to environmental information is guaranteed by article 41 of the National Constitution and by the General Environment Law, and noted that the preventive and precautionary principles oblige adopting measures before irreversible damage occurs. She warned that the loss or alteration of data collected over nearly fifteen years could hinder the effectiveness of the protection that must be adopted and added that such information could be necessary for the projection of future public policies and to nourish democratic debate.[S1]
Despite granting the precautionary measure, the judge decided to abstain from intervening in the case. She argued that the main claim requires ruling on the constitutionality of article 154 of DNU 70/2023 and that, as it involves a national norm challenged against the national state, jurisdiction corresponds to the federal justice system. She stated that the claim cannot be resolved without determining the constitutional validity of article 154 of DNU 70/2023, and she forwarded the case to the Cámara Federal de La Plata for the assignment of the court that will continue the proceedings. Meanwhile, the precautionary measure will remain in force until the federal judge who is selected decides whether to maintain, modify or revoke it.[S1]
