Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / byDaniel Majewski del Castillo, Zusel Soto Vilchis, José Alejandro Krause Marún, Karla Mishelli Tapia Santos, Carla Itzel Rincón Guerrero, and David Fernando Santos Mejía.
In this #ThesisFriday | September 19, 2025, the Judicial Weekly published 33 new rulings: 11 precedents and 22 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Collegiate Circuit Courts and the Regional Circuit Plenary Sessions:
Abstracts
Digital record: 2031250 / Thesis: XVII.1o.P.A. J/10 A (11a.)
Case Law of the Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The collection of registration fees in Chihuahua is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of tax proportionality.
The principle of tax proportionality requires that any taxes or fees collected be commensurate with the actual cost of the service provided by the government. If the government collects fees for registering or recording titles and fails to provide evidence that such fees reasonably correspond to the costs of providing the service, then the law establishing those fees is deemed to violate this constitutional principle.
Digital registration number: 2031255 / Thesis: I.2o.A.7 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
To initiate infringement proceedings regarding industrial property rights, it is sufficient to hold a valid license at the time of the events.
In Contradiction of Criteria 119/2024, it was ruled that, to file a complaint regarding an infringement of industrial property rights, it is sufficient for the trademark license to have been in force at the time the infringement occurred, even if the registration has since expired by the time the complaint is filed. The reason is that what matters is punishing improper conduct and protecting the right to exclusive use of the trademark; otherwise, impunity would be encouraged and the purpose of the law would be rendered ineffective.
Digital registration number: 2031257 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/35 C (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
Decisions rendered during the enforcement phase of oral commercial enforcement proceedings are final and non-appealable.
Article 1390 Ter 15, which refers “as applicable” to the rules governing the enforcement of commercial judgments, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the structure of oral commercial enforcement proceedings, the purpose of which is to be swift, efficient, and free of ordinary appeals so as not to hinder commerce. This means that the judgment enforcement stage is also part of the proceeding and, therefore, the principle of non-appealability applies to it, in accordance with the rulings of the Inter-American Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, allowing appeals at this stage would create contradictions and render the streamlined model sought by the law meaningless.
Digital registration number: 2031273 / Thesis: III.2o.A.13 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The appeal is admissible if the Administrative Court of Jalisco dismisses the case on a ground of inadmissibility that is open to dispute.
Section 79(VI) of the Amparo Law allows for the supplementation of an incomplete complaint in administrative matters when an official act leaves the complainant without a defense. This occurs if, in an administrative lawsuit, the court dismisses the case on its own motion before rendering a judgment on grounds of inadmissibility that are neither clear nor evident, since this prevents access to the trial and leaves the plaintiff defenseless.
Digital registration number: 2031274 / Thesis: III.2o.A.12 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In a direct appeal, the complaint is deemed to have been replaced when the complaint was dismissed on grounds of lack of standing that are not self-evident.
Article 79, Section VI, of the Amparo Law allows judges to remedy a deficient complaint in administrative matters when there is a clear violation of the law that leaves the complainant without a defense. This occurs, for example, when, in a federal administrative lawsuit, the complaint is dismissed on the basis of an alleged ground for dismissal that is neither clear nor indisputable, but rather requires the in-depth analysis typical of a final judgment.
Digital registration number: 2031271 / Thesis: II.1o.A.27 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Issuing court rulings in plain language ensures that adolescents can understand and exercise their right to justice.
Judgments in accessible or easy-to-read formats are a tool that ensures adolescents have meaningful access to justice, as they enable these young people to understand the content and scope of the rulings that affect them. This fulfills constitutional and human rights obligations, since it is not enough simply to issue a judgment; courts must also present it in clear language that ensures effective judicial protection for this vulnerable group.
Digital record: 2031245 / Thesis: I.20o.A.8 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The decision to hear arguments only in open court constitutes a procedural rule that upholds due process.
The rule of granting hearings only in cases scheduled for a hearing does not reflect favoritism or bias; rather, it is an internal organizational measure designed to ensure efficiency and equal treatment for all parties. This practice is part of judicial independence, allows for better management of the workload, and ensures that decisions are made with greater preparation, fostering a more productive and transparent dialogue with the parties in cases ready for resolution.
Digital registration number: 2031244 / Thesis: I.20o.A.5 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In order to prioritize access to justice and the resolution of the merits of the case, it is essential to include in the constitutional proceedings all the acts whose joint consideration is necessary for a comprehensive resolution of the human rights issues raised.
To ensure access to justice, constitutional judges must include in constitutional proceedings all acts whose combined assessment is necessary to resolve human rights claims on their merits, even if some of those acts could be challenged through other ordinary legal channels.
Digital registration number: 2031252 / Thesis: I.20o.A.89 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The Fund for Comprehensive Aid, Assistance, and Reparation for Victims (CEAV) engages in unjustified delays by failing to promptly resolve claims for compensation for human rights violations committed by federal authorities, thereby violating victims’ right to access to justice.
An undue delay that violates the right of access to justice occurs when the CEAV fails to accept and rule on the admissibility of a claim for compensation for human rights violations within 20 days, unless it provides a well-founded and reasoned justification. This is in accordance with the principle of due diligence, under which the State is obligated to take all necessary actions, within a reasonable timeframe, to ensure the protection of victims.
Digital registration number: 2031253 / Thesis: I.20o.A.6 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
A repeated refusal to grant a hearing to present oral arguments does not necessarily imply an objective risk of a loss of impartiality.
A repeated refusal to grant a hearing for oral arguments does not, in and of itself, constitute an objective ground for a loss of impartiality when such a refusal is based on a general judicial policy designed to ensure the proper handling of cases, and must be exercised at the appropriate time for the proper administration of justice, after weighing the requirements imposed by the parties’ procedural rights.
Digital registration number: 2031259 / Thesis: II.1o.A.59 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Authorities exercising substantive judicial functions must apply a gender- and adolescent-sensitive approach when gathering and evaluating, on their own initiative, the evidence necessary to clarify the facts.
In administrative disciplinary proceedings involving adolescents and potential acts of gender-based violence, the authority must, on its own initiative, gather and examine the evidence necessary to clarify the facts, applying methodologies that take into account gender and adolescent perspectives.
Digital registration number: 2031261 / Thesis: II.1o.A.29 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Courts are required to recognize children and adolescents as full holders of rights and to ensure their enhanced protection.
This is because a rights-based approach requires recognition, respect, and an awareness that children and adolescents are rights-holders with their own autonomy and the capacity to make their own decisions—characteristics that are still developing.
Digital registration number: 2031254 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/32 K (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
Sections XI and XIII of Article 123(B) of the Federal Constitution do not provide for grounds for dismissing an amparo action.
This is because it is not feasible to equate fundamental provisions that, both in terms of their purpose and substance, recognize and protect the individual and social rights of workers in State agencies with provisions that render constitutional challenges to acts of authority inadmissible; therefore, it is not legally viable to deem an amparo action inadmissible on the basis of subsections XI and XIII of Section B of Article 123 of the Constitution.
Prepared by Daniel Majewski del Castillo, Zusel Soto Vilchis, José Alejandro Krause Marún, Karla Mishelli Tapia Santos, Carla Itzel Rincón Guerrero, and David Fernando Santos Mejía.
