Decree 1652/91

of 22/08/91

VISTO draft law No. 23,982 passed on 21 August 1991 and communicated by the HONORABLE CONGREE of NATION for the purposes provided for in article 69 of the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION, and

CONSIDERING:

That article 1 (e) of the draft introduces an assumption already contemplated in the other subparagraphs, whose maintenance might hinder the interpretation and application of the law.

That in the last paragraph of article 1 of the project it is excluded from the consolidation of the compensation for expropriation for reasons of public utility or for the illegible dispossession of property declared judicially with past judgements with the authority of question.

Such a distinction introduces unequal treatment between such creditors and all other public sector creditors reached by consolidation to those who have judicially recognized their credits. It also discriminates between the same creditors for compensation for expropriations for reasons of public utility, according to whether or not there is a firm sentence, prior to the validity of the proposed law.

That the constitutional requirement in respect of the treatment that corresponds to the previous compensations imposed by article 17 of the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION as a requirement of dismantling, is fulfilled only if the amount of compensation arising from the official taxation is paid prior to the dispossession, referring the payment of the compensatory balance that had been recognized, or is recognized judicially, to the general system of the bill, since in such a matter would have

Without the addition of the last paragraph of article 1, the draft law complies with all the requirements for its constitutional validity, in establishing a regulation of the right to use and enjoy property, proportional to an objective emergency situation it declares. What is ratified by the possibility given to creditors to implement their credits in public debt securities that will have preferential treatment for various legal acts of economic relevance.

That the binding arbitral route set out in the paragraphs added to article 5 of the draft law expressly contravene the constitutional jurisdiction which article 101o attributes in an original and exclusive manner to the SUPREMA COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION to resolve conflicts between the Provinces and the Nation.

That article 7 (d) of the draft introduces a restriction on the preference given to public sector credit holders in the form of compensatory balances for expropriations for reasons of public utility or for the illegment of property, limiting it to those who do not have firm sentences in their favour to the date of entry into force of the law.

That such a limitation was commensurate with the exclusion of the consolidation of those receivables for expropriation indemnities with firm judgements, which is noted by the present, so that the established limitation must also be subject to observation, in order to address such claims in the order in which they had been previously placed.

That the second paragraph of Article 13 establishes a system for the cancellation of tax and customs debts that is inequitable for taxpayers who have received moratorium regimes

That the last paragraph of article 13 is complementary to the second paragraph.

That the last paragraph added to article 15 of the bill introduces a preference for the Provinces in the processes of bullying of goods and privatization of enterprises, which could seriously affect the fulfilment of the objectives set out in the State reform law for the privatization of public enterprises. This preference also creates discrimination in favour of the provincial creditors of the Nation, which is to the detriment of the other creditors reached by the consolidation. In the egalitarian spirit that encourages the bill, it is that all creditors have the same possibilities at the time of parling with their credits in the purchase of the assets to matize.

That the liabilities in article 20 of the draft are taken over by the national State, have not been legally charged, and cannot be included in the consolidation.

It should be noted that article 23 of the draft left chapter VII of Decree No. 1757/90 without effect.

That therefore, it is appropriate to make use of the powers conferred on the NATIONAL EXECUTIVE PODER by article 72 of the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION.

Therefore,

THE PRESIDENT

OF ARGENTINA NATION

DECRETA

Article 1Note subparagraph (e) and the last paragraph of article 1 ° of the Bill of Law registered under No. 23.982.

Art.2 -Note the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of Article 5 of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

Art. 3o-Note the part of article 7 (d) of the Bill registered under the Law No. 23.982, which reads: "without a final judgment on the date of the sanction of this law", inserted at the end of the paragraph.

Art. 4o-Note the following provisions of article 13 of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

(a) Article 13 (2) of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

(b) The last paragraph of article 13 of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

Art.5o-Note the last paragraph of Article 15 of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

Art.6°-Note article 20 of the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

Art. 7o.-Note the part of article 23 of the Draft Law which stipulates that chapter VII of Decree No. 1757/90 should be left without effect.

Art. 8o -With the salvedades set out in the preceding articles, please fill in, promute and tengase by the National Act the Bill registered under No. 23.982.

Art.9o-Contact, post, give to the National Directorate of the Official Register and archívese -MENEM -Domingo F. Cavallo.