On September 22, 2014, Division 3 of the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters reversed the lower court’s decision and held that a sworn statement was sufficient for plaintiff’s petition for an interlocutory injunction to be granted, and that the deposit of a bond was not necessary (“YPF – Petition for interlocutory injunction”).
When applying for an interlocutory injunction both the TRIPs Agreement and the Argentine Code of Civil Procedure provide that a bond must be posted to answer for eventual damages if the petitioner does not succeed on the merits of the claim.
At the same time, the Argentine Code of Civil Procedure provides for an exception when the petitioner is the National Administration, a Province, a Municipality or any person capable of showing wealth.
The lower court granted the petition for the interlocutory injunction and ordered plaintiff YPF to deposit a bond in the amount of AR$ 100,000.
On appeal, in a divided decision Justices Recondo and Medina reversed the lower court’s decision and found that absent any risk that the plaintiff will bear any possible damages if it were not to succeed on the merits, a sworn statement was sufficient for the injunction to be granted.
It is worth noting that in a dissenting opinion Justice Antelo argued that the requirements set forth in the law should not be disregarded on the basis of the more or less economic power of the petitioners as this might affect the principle of equal treatment.
The decision stands apart from some other court precedents and it remains to be seen if this view will become the general rule when dealing with interlocutory injunctions.