Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters assert Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws by not properly processing their complaint against the companies Ecolimpio de M‚xico, SA de CV and Transportes J. Guadalupe Jim‚nez, SA, and by not penalizing those companies. The Submitters claim that both companies operate in violation of the law, causing serious damage to the environment and their property. Furthermore, they assert that the companies are seriously endangering their health and physical well-being due to the improper management of hazardous waste.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, Mexico maintains that the submission should have been disallowed since the Submitters did not meet the requirements of clearly identifying themselves and including sufficient evidence. It asserts that the Submitters also failed to meet the requirement of pursuing the private remedies available to them under Mexico’s law and that the meaning of “private remedies available” includes all means available to private persons to combat failures of law enforcement. Mexico states that a contrary interpretation would be tantamount “to vitiating the jurisdictional institutions of the state parties to the NAAEC.” It further asserts that the power of attorney granted by the Submitters to their legal representative and the evidence presented in the submission should have conformed to the provisions of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Code of the State of Coahuila. Mexico states that, in contravention of NAAEC Article 14(1)(d), the submission seeks to harass two industrial establishments; in demonstration of this, it offers evidence in its response that the legal representative of the Submitters is a competitor of the companies in question. In addition, it asserts that the Submitters argue the failure to enforce the law by the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Profepa) despite having full knowledge and clear proof that Profepa took timely action. In demonstration of these assertions, Mexico provides evidence of the process followed and states that the Submission should have been dismissed since there are pending proceedings against the companies in question. Mexico states that matters regarding those pending proceedings must be kept confidential under its Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information. In its response, Mexico asserts that the Secretariat lacks the power to interpret the provisions of NAAEC Articles 14 and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters and that the Secretariat should not have requested a response to the submission.

 

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecol¢gico y la Protecci¢n al Ambiente-LGEEPA) and its hazardous waste regulation

Submitter(s):

Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier, José Genaro, Miguel Angel, Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres

represented by/representés par/representados por:

 

Francisco H. Garza Vara

Submission Timeline

January 27, 2004

The Secretariat received a submission and began a preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines.

Acknowledgement - Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 29/01/2004

Submission - Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 23/01/2004

February 20, 2004

The Secretariat notified the submitter(s) that the submission did not meet all of the Article 14(1) criteria and the submitter(s) had 30 days to provide the Secretariat with a revised submission that conforms with Article 14(1).

Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) authored by Secretariat on 20/02/2004

March 16, 2004

The Secretariat received a revised submission and began to analyze it.

Acknowledgement - Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 18/03/2004

Submission - Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 10/03/2004

April 20, 2004

The Secretariat determined that part of the submission did not meet the Article 14(1) criteria and the Secretariat allowed submitter(s) a thirty-day term to provide more information for it to reconsider its determination prior to considering the merits of requesting a response from the concerned government Party.

Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) authored by Secretariat on 20/04/2004

May 25, 2004

The Secretariat received more information from submitter(s).

Submission - Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 18/05/2004

Acknowledgement - Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 25/05/2004

June 30, 2004

The Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria of Article 14(1) and requested a response from the concerned government Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) and 14 (2) authored by Secretariat on 30/06/2004

September 24, 2004

The Secretariat received a response from the concerned government Party and began considering whether to recommend a factual record.

Party Response - Response from the Party under Article 14 (3) authored by Mexico on 23/09/2004

Acknowledgement - authored by Secretariat on 30/09/2004

October 13, 2004

The Secretariat requested additional information from the concerned government Party under Article 21(1)(b).

Secretariat Information Request - Secretariat Request to the Party for Additional Information under Article 21(1)(b) authored by Secretariat on 13/10/2004

January 27, 2005

The Secretariat determined not to recommend the preparation of a factual record. Under guideline 9.6, the process was terminated.

Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 15 (1) authored by Secretariat on 27/01/2005