This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Registration of Cannabis in Argentina
By Manuel Lobato. Patents Lawyer.
Through a joint resolution -N°5 / 2021- issued and signed between the National Seed Institute (INASE) and the Ministry of Health of Argentina, it is approved the registration of varieties of Cannabis sativa L.
With this resolution issued, the registration of cultivars of the Cannabis sativa L. species is authorized before the National Registry of Cultivars and/or the National Registry of the Property of Cultivars of the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SEEDS,
The objectives of the resolution are the following:
- Guarantee the central objective of Law No. 27,350 in relation to access to medical cannabis by citizens.
- Allow those who grow their own plants, access to quality seeds and certified identity and, to those who consume their products, reliable information about them.
- To value the work of all those who throughout these years have investigated and studied the properties of the seed of this species, even when the activity was not contemplated in the Law.
- Enable the commercialization and eventually the use of the breeder’s right.
- Collaborate in the expansion of technological sovereignty, allowing research, development, and improvement of varieties applied to the national territory and their own characteristics.
According to article 2, those -locals and foreigners- who want to file an application before the INASE, will have to comply with the requirements requested by the body for the purposes of registration except for the declaration of the genetic origin from which the applicant is exempted.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/243827/20210430?busqueda=1
Read More 1
Habeas Data & Cryptoactives
By Manuel Lobato. Patents Lawyer.
On April 5th, 2021 an Argentinean lawyer, owner of crypto assets -bitcoins- filed a constitutional action of habeas data against a request made by the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic.
Through this petition, the Bank asked credit institutions to provide the personal data -full name, address, number of accounts, among others-, of all those clients who have acquired and/or sold and/or managed payments through bitcoins and other kinds of crypto assets.
The purpose of the request for such information -according to the lender entity-, is based on the need to have all the data available to carry out a specific normative regulation on the matter.
Request to BCRA: Application of mechanisms for the deletion of the customer registry
The objective of the filing of the habeas data action – constitutionally regulated in article 43 of the Argentine Constitution – is to request the BCRA through the Court, to apply mechanisms of dissociation or deletion of the registry of clients whose data that the maximum Argentine banking entity is requiring.
Likewise, in the brief filed, the signee lawyer questions the grounds concerning the powers of surveillance and regulatory creation that the Bank has included in the statement that it has sent to financial institutions, requiring the remission of personal data of their customers.
Finally, the lawyer argues that the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic does not have any legal basis to request from financial entities personal data of their clients’ portfolios and that doing so violates the rights of privacy, intimacy, and protection of Personal Information.
To date, the court where the habeas data action was filed has not yet issued a judicial resolution in this regard.
In case your company decides to start working or if it is already working with personal data, be advised by experts in the matter.
In Moeller IP Advisors there is a wide range of services in connection with the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy.
Also, check our blog and/or LinkedIn account for further information.
Read More 0
IP – Internet Protocol – Is Not Personal Data – an Argentinean Court Rules
By Manuel Lobato. Patents Lawyer.
The Federal Court of the Argentine province of Córdoba, on December 29, 2020, in the file FCB 88747/2018/1 / CA1, issued a judgment, from which it confirmed the decision of the 1st Instance Judge who declared that the IP address is not personal data.
The official defense of the accused filed an appeal in order to revoke the judicial decision of the federal judge of 1 ° instance that rejected the proposal for nullity against the measure carried out by the Prosecutor, from which she requested reports to different agencies -among them the Federal Administration of Public Revenues and companies that provide internet services-, which involved the use of the defendant’s IP address, from which information was extracted, regarding changes of addresses, issuance of invoices-making state date of issue, name of the purchaser, type of invoice, voucher number, point of sale and IP address- and economic activities that involved it, as well as its full name and address.
The reports, as recorded in the case and was the basis for the appeal, were requested without a prior court order.
The Official Defender relied on art. 18 of the Argentine Constitution -which protects private correspondence- and the laws No. 25,326 of Protection of Personal Data and No. 25,520 of National Intelligence, to found that the IP is personal data and that its violation is comparable to the interception of telephone communications.
The prosecutor, for her part, requested the rejection of the nullity claim filed by the defense, broadening her position that: 1) the information requested is exempt from fiscal secrecy; 2) that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, based on said exception, has the faculties to request it directly from the AFIP – Argentinean Taxes Bureau-, as long as the prosecutor herself directs the investigation; 3) and that the IP address is simply an interface that allows, among other issues, to establish who is the internet service provider company, not being able to expressly know the user’s activities.
The judge of first instance rejected the proposal of nullity of the accused’s defense, arguing that in no way is equivalent to the act of telephone interception, the request for ownership of the IP to internet service providers, basing its criteria on judicial precedents and legal interpretations, especially of the personal data protection law, art. 5, part 2, sections b and c, outlining that certain data even have less protection than others.
Finally, the Court confirmed the rejection of the nullity claim based on the following arguments: 1) that the appealed resolution was issued in accordance with the law and properly founded; 2) That the judge a quo made a correct interpretation of why the request for ownership of the IP is not comparable to telephone interception; 3) That the prosecutor did not exceed the functions that the procedural law grants her when requesting information on the ownership of the IP; 4) That the Court takes the arguments provided by the Prosecutor’s Office by accepting that the IP address does not allow access to personal data or correspondence of its owner, so it is not comparable to telephone interception; 5) That the personal data protection law on does not apply to the case and that the rights that it protects are not absolute when there are exceptions to the general principle of the obligation to obtain the consent of the owner (art. 5 °, 2nd part, subsections b and c); 5) That the data collected is nominative and does not affect the privacy of the owner; 6) That, finally, judicial authorization is not required to carry out the evidentiary diligence carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office since the privacy of the holder is not being violated.
Read More
0
Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office Establishes the Reinstatement of all Suspended Terms by Resolution No. 194-2020.
The Argentine Patent and Trademark Office published in the Official Electronic Bulletin dated November 24, 2020, Resolution No. 194-2020. This Resolution establishes the reinstatement of all suspended terms as from December 14, 2020.
We will continue to provide legal updates as needed and requested, to our clients and colleagues worldwide, and wish you to stay healthy and safe.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time with any doubt or question you may have.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/237589/20201124
Read More 0
Non-compliance with the Law’s Directions Invalidates Dismissal for (Alleged) Just Cause
By Ivan Blomqvist. Júnior Lawyer.
A recent decision issued by the judges of the National Chamber of Labor Appeals in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina in the case “R., R. A. c/CLIBA Ingeniería Ambiental S.A. s/ Despido” allowed a worker, who was fired by an alleged just cause, to receive indemnification by their former employer.
Rolando Alfredo Ramirez filed suit against his employer CLIBA Ingeniería Ambiental S.A. after being dismissed for: “…having made confidential information public, ignoring precise indications from their superiors and violating the internal regulations of the company…”
After the decision in the first instance to indemnify the plaintiff, the defendant appealed only for it to be confirmed in the second instance. The judge Dr. María Dora Gonzalez expressed that from reading the memo that informed the plaintiff of his dismissal, there was a lack of clear and detailed information that would substantiate it. In order for a work contract to be extinguished for just cause, aside from there being a violation, workers must be thoroughly informed of the reasons that lead to such decision as state by Article 2431 contained in the Work Contract Law.
The seemingly generic information provided to the plaintiff, which can lead to a myriad of diverse interpretations and restrict his right of defense, together with the fact that the witnesses brought in to corroborate the worker’s actions failed to do so, despite they were acknowledging to being a manager or high hierarchical staff of the plaintiff, lead the judge’s decision to confirm the appealed sentence and therefore the payment of indemnification to the plaintiff by the defendant.
1(Art. 243 – Dismissal for just cause ordered by the employer as well as the complaint of the employment contract based on just cause made by the worker, must be communicated in writing, with the sufficiently clear expression of the reasons on which the breach of the contract is based. Faced with the claim filed by the interested party, the modification of the grounds for dismissal stated in the aforementioned communications will not be admitted.)
Read More
1
Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office Extends Suspension of Terms by Resolution Nr. 183-2020.
The Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office published the Resolution N 183-2020 in the Electronic Official Bulletin of November 10, 2020, introducing the following:
Considering the current sanitary emergency, to extend the suspension of terms determined by the Resolutions N 16-2020, 22-2020, 34-2020, 37-2020, 42-2020, 47-2020, 51-2020, 69-2020, 78-2020, 116-2020, 127-2020, 142-2020, 167-2020 and 171-2020 until November 29, 2020, inclusive.
We will continue to provide legal updates as needed and requested, to our clients and colleagues worldwide, and wish you to stay healthy and safe.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/237127/20201110
Read More 0
Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office Extends Suspension of Terms by Resolution Nr. 171-2020.
The Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office published the Resolution N 171-2020 in the Electronic Official Bulletin of October 27, 2020, introducing the following:
Considering the current sanitary emergency, to extend the suspension of terms determined by the Resolutions N 16-2020, 22-2020, 34-2020, 37-2020, 42-2020, 47-2020, 51-2020, 69-2020, 78-2020, 116-2020, 127-2020, 142-2020 and 167-2020 until November 8, 2020, inclusive.
We will continue to provide legal updates as needed and requested, to our clients and colleagues worldwide, and wish you to stay healthy and safe.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/236557/20201027
Read More
0
Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office Extends Suspension of Terms by Resolution Nr. 167-2020.
The Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office published the Resolution N 167-2020 in the Electronic Official Bulletin of October 14th, 2020, introducing the following:
Considering the current sanitary emergency, to extend the suspension of terms determined by the Resolutions N 16-2020, 22-2020, 34-2020, 37-2020, 42-2020, 47-2020, 51-2020, 69-2020, 78-2020, 116-2020, 127-2020 and 142-2020 until October 25th, 2020, inclusive.
We will continue to provide legal updates as needed and requested, to our clients and colleagues worldwide, and wish you to stay healthy and safe.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time with any doubt or questions you may have.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/236001/20201014
Read More 0
Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office Extends Suspension of Terms by Resolution Nr. 142-2020.
The Argentinian Patent and Trademark Office published the Resolution N 142-2020 in the Electronic Official Bulletin of September 22nd, 2020, introducing the following:
Considering the current sanitary emergency, to extend the suspension of terms determined by the Resolutions N 16-2020, 22-2020, 34-2020, 37-2020, 42-2020, 47-2020, 51-2020, 69-2020, 78-2020, 116-2020 and 127-2020 until October 11, 2020, inclusive.
We will continue to provide legal updates as needed and requested, to our clients and colleagues worldwide, and wish you to stay healthy and safe.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time with any doubt or questions you may have.
Source: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/235198/20200922
Read More
0
The MERCOSUR-EU Agreement and the Legislation on Data Protection in the Countries of the Region.
By Manuel Lobato. Patents Lawyer.
1. Introduction: MERCOSUR-EU Agreement and the legislation on Data Protection
As is well known, last year, after several rounds of negotiations, the agreement between Mercosur and the European Union on economic matters emerged. Said agreement included matters related to customs duties, exchange of goods and services, sanitary measures, intellectual and industrial property rights, SMEs, dispute resolution, among other issues of relevance to both blocks.
Among these issues, although not as an integral part of the text of the agreement, discussions related to the Protection of Personal Data were also included. Currently, the States of the European Union are governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or by its acronym, the GDPR, which is mandatory since May 25, 2018. During her visit to Argentina, in July of last year, the European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Vera Jourova, spoke about the benefits that the regulation and harmonization of data protection legislation would bring to both blocs.
For sure the EU is at the forefront in this matter, and in order to enable the advancement of this agreement for both blocs and above all, for the MERCOSUR countries, it is necessary that their laws harmonize with the provisions and principles of the GDPR, as which would bring about a quantitative and qualitative leap towards respect for the individual rights of people, the self-determination of the person regarding the processing of their data on the internet and in files, the final recognition of data protection as a fundamental human right, among other conquests.
Nowadays, in the current global situation of the coronavirus pandemic that hits the whole world, the negotiations have stalled, since there are urgent issues to address regarding the countries that make up each block. However, it is noteworthy that the will to move forward is intact.
That is why is necessary to carry out a review of the situation in which the laws of the MERCOSUR countries are in relation to the Protection of Personal Data, and why it is almost mandatory to use this time to be able to adapt them to the required standards by the EU in order to finally reach the conclusion of the negotiations carried out at the time of carrying out the revision of the Agreement between the two trade blocs.
2. Country by Country: MERCOSUR-EU Agreement and the legislation on Data Protection
a) ARGENTINA:
The law that regulates the protection of personal data in Argentina is Law 25326, enacted on October 4, 2000, and is currently in force.
This law regulates what pertains to the treatment of personal data, its classification, the principles that should govern its treatment, international transfer of data, the rights of its owners, and the resources and actions that they have both administrative as well as judicially to obtain the deletion, rectification, modification, addition and correction of the data found in files or databases, both public and private, and the obligations of the owners of said files or databases when collecting and processing personal data.
In Argentina, the enforcement authority regarding Personal Data and Access to Public Information is the National Agency of Access to Public Information, which has a secretariat that is in charge of regulating and supervising everything related to personal data and the compliance of the Personal Data Protection law, which is the National Office of Protection of Personal Data.
In 2018 a Bill was presented to amend the Data Protection law and bring it as closely as possible to the GDPR standards, but unfortunately, the bill lost parliamentary status this year.
b) BRAZIL:
In 2018 it was sanctioned the new Law on Personal Data Protection – No. 13,709 LGPD-. On August 26 the Brazilian Parliament decided that the suspension of its enforceability would not be extended, so it is the law that is currently in force in Brazil to regulate everything related to the protection of the personal data of natural persons, processed both within the borders of the country, and by foreign companies that process data of persons located in Brazil.
This law has many points in common with the European General Data Protection Regulation, establishing an adequate legal framework regarding the collection, processing, and storage of personal data in general and sensitive data in particular, as well as the obligations and responsibilities of those –processors and controllers- who collect, process, select and store personal data, and may be liable –in case of non-compliance with the provisions of the law-, to be sanctioned administratively, civilly and criminally.
Likewise, it establishes the rights of the holders of personal data to grant informed consent for the collection and processing of their data and to control access, correction, rectification, updating, anonymization, and deletion of their data that are contained in databases both public and private.
For this law, it is mandatory -in certain cases- the need to have a Data Protection Delegate, and the enforcement authority is the National Data Protection Agency of Brazil.
c) PARAGUAY:
In Paraguay, the Protection of Personal Data is regulated not only in the country’s Constitution but is also based on Laws No. 1682/2001, 1969/2002, which amends the first one and Law 5542 / 2015.
This set of laws regulate, among other issues: the processing and treatment of personal data contained in files, records, and public and private databases. The collection, processing, and treatment of personal data is only allowed for scientific, economic, statistical, or marketing purposes.
However, the current legislation establishes nothing regarding the figures of the database administrator; but it does regulate obligations pertaining to those responsible for said bases. Nor does it make a distinction between processors and controllers. Nor does it establish any obligation to report data breaches or incidents that occur with personal data.
The international transfer of data and its regulatory framework is not established in the legislation of Paraguay.
Likewise, there is no authority in Paraguay that regulates matters relating to the Protection of Personal Data and compliance with the law.
Finally, although the law does not establish anything regarding the possibility of making claims before administrative or judicial entities for violation of Personal Data, the penalties are established by other regulations, which allow those whose data have suffered any violation the right to claim before civil or criminal justice the pursue of a compensation.
There is a bill presented to the Paraguayan Parliament in 2019.
d) URUGUAY:
In Uruguay, personal data is ruled by Law No. 18,331, amended by Law No. 19,670, whose regulatory decree 64/020 modified certain articles of the first-mentioned law.
The law regulates the following aspects: a) it establishes a sort of glossary with definitions pertaining to personal data and the principles applicable; b) it also regulates the registration of the databases of the entities that collect and process personal data, whether they are located in Uruguay or process personal data of persons residing in Uruguay -under certain circumstances-; c) Establishes for public and private entities the need to have a Data Protection Officer and its obligations and responsibilities thereof; d) the need to have the informed consent of the owner of the data to collect, process and treat said data; e) the international transfer of data, the cases in which it proceeds and the requirements to transfer data to third parties; f) the obligations of the person in charge and the administrator of the databases; g) In the event of personal data breached or incidents that occur with them, the collectors, processors and responsible of the databases has to give notice and take the necessary measures to minimize risks; h) administrative sanctions concerning non-compliance with the rules contained in the law, ranging from warning to imposition of fines.
The application authority in the field of Data Protection in Uruguay is the Regulatory and Control Unit of Personal Data.
In February 2020, Law 19,670 was regulated, which among other issues complements Law 18,331 in terms of: 1) the adoption by the person responsible for the treatment of technical and/or organizational security measures to avoid and/or minimize incidents and breaches that may occur with personal data; 2) the promotion of national and international standards on cybersecurity; 3) the documentation of such measures and the planning and impact assessment regarding Personal Data.
3. Conclusion: MERCOSUR-EU Agreement and the legislation on Data Protection
After having made a brief reference to the Agreement between the European Union and Mercosur and the current state of the negotiations, reviewing the legislative situation of some of the countries that make up this last regional bloc, the truth is that it is essential to have an adequate level of protection of personal data, especially due to the extraterritoriality principle generated by compliance with the provisions of the GDPR and the cross-border flow of data.
Today we are witnessing a new era in human rights, where digital self-determination is no stranger. Where the right to digital existence of people cannot be overwhelmed over other issues such as those of an economic nature. That existence must be protected against any kind of violation.
Likewise, it is necessary to harmonize the laws of both economic blocs, which pushes MERCOSUR to take all the necessary steps to adapt its laws and regulate this new human right as an imperative, in order to achieve safer agreements in pursuit of a conciliatory and protective globalization of this new right that appears today.
Finally, it is worth highlighting the position that countries such as Argentina and Uruguay have in terms of recognition by the European Union regarding the adequate level of protection that these countries ensure to Personal Data, which places them at the forefront in the region.
However, it is mandatory for Argentina to update its law in order to continue maintaining that position in the face of the constant requirements of a globalized world both materially and digitally.
Sources:
https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/18331-2008
Read More 0