Supreme Court Jurisprudence
On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina (hereinafter, the “Court”), in the case “Coca Cola Femsa de Buenos Aires S.A. v. Province of Buenos Aires on Procedural Incident” (the “Ruling”), addressed how to determine the amount of court fees in declaratory actions for certainty (the “Action”).
This type of Action is filed to eliminate uncertainty regarding the existence, scope, or terms of a legal relationship, provided that the lack of certainty could cause actual harm to the plaintiff and that no other legal means are available to resolve the matter immediately.
The issue centered on the application of Law No. 23.898 (the “Law”), which sets different court fee amounts for proceedings before National Courts in the Federal Capital and National Courts based in the Provinces, particularly in terms of how fees are calculated for this type of Action.
According to Article 2 of the Law, a 3% fee applies to all proceedings with a determinable monetary value. Article 6, on the other hand, provides for a fixed amount in cases where the subject matter has no economic value or its value is indeterminable.
The Supreme Court has established through jurisprudence that if the Action only seeks a declaratory judgment and the dispute has no economic value or its value is indeterminable, the fixed fee set forth in Article 6 applies.
However, in its October 19, 2023 ruling in “Frigorífico Paladini S.A. v. Province of Entre Ríos on Declaratory Action of Certainty”, the Court ruled that the 3% fee under Article 2 should apply when the Action:
- Seeks a declaratory ruling that impacts past, not only future, legal situations;
- Requests a precautionary measure exempting the plaintiff from paying monetary obligations to the State;
- Aims to nullify administrative acts with the explicit purpose of collecting money.
In other words, if the claim has clear financial implications, the 3% fee applies.
In the recent Coca Cola ruling, the Court, following the reasoning from the Paladini case, found that the plaintiff’s claim fell within the third scenario.
The plaintiff had paid the fixed fee under Article 6, arguing that the lawsuit merely sought to eliminate uncertainty regarding the provincial tax regime. This regime imposed a higher tax rate on gross income derived from industrial establishments located outside the province, and the plaintiff had also requested a precautionary measure.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s objection, noting that:
- The Action sought a declaration to prevent the collection of tax differences between what had been paid and what the tax authority claimed was owed;
- The tax authority had issued rulings as part of a tax determination and summary procedure related to the disputed claim;
- The plaintiff’s claim clearly had monetary content, as it aimed to invalidate and neutralize the tax authority’s demand, from which the plaintiff would be exempted if successful.
As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had to pay the court fee in accordance with Article 2 of Law No. 23.898 (3% of the value in dispute).
Thus, the Court established as binding precedent that declaratory actions for certainty must pay either:
- A fixed fee under Article 6 when there is no financial content or the amount is indeterminable; or
- A 3% fee under Article 2 when the claim involves a patrimonial (monetary) interest.
