with international human rights obligations. Nonetheless, in bankruptcy scenarios, this protection can be undermined if other privileged claims— most notably those held by the tax authority— consume the available estate. This systemic tension lies at the heart of the judicial conflict addressed in the Acevedo ruling.
A Jurisprudential Turn: From Pinturas to Acevedo
In Pinturas y Revestimientos Aplicados S. A.( 2014) 3, the Argentine Supreme Court departed from the statutory priority order and ruled that labor claims prevail over tax claims, relying on ILO Convention No. 173. The Court reasoned that the Convention, having been approved by Congress, enjoyed a superior normative status and should be interpreted as granting supra-legal protection to labor creditors vis-à-vis the State.
In doing so, the Court exercised active conventionality control, aligning domestic case law with the international labor protection framework. The ruling was widely followed by lower courts, becoming a pillar of insolvency jurisprudence over the past decade.
However, on April 3, 2025, in Acevedo, Eva María v. Manufactura Textil San Justo S. A. on Bankruptcy, the Supreme Court( with a different composition) effectively overruled Pinturas, reestablishing the primacy of the statutory tax privilege and narrowing the scope of international labor protections in insolvency cases.
The Acevedo Case: Reaffirming the Principle of Legality
In Acevedo, the Supreme Court overturned a distribution plan that had prioritized labor claims in accordance with Pinturas. The majority held that ILO Convention No. 173 is not enforceable under Argentine domestic law, as it had been approved by Congress( Law 24.285) but never formally ratified by the Executive Branch— a necessary step under Articles 31, 75( 22), and 99( 11) of the Argentine
3
Pinturas y Revestimientos Aplicados SA, Bankruptcy( CSJN, 26 March 2014) Fallos 337:315.
Constitution.
The justices concurred that in the absence of ratification, the treaty lacks binding force. However, their individual opinions introduce significant nuances, which are summarized below.
Minister Rosenkrantz emphasized that the treaty-making process is a constitutionally complex federal act, consisting of signature, legislative approval, and executive ratification. Referring to the landmark case Ekmekdjian v. Sofovich 4, he asserted that Pinturas failed to respect this procedural requirement and therefore improperly extended the scope of a non-binding treaty.
In a concurring opinion, Minister Rosatti agreed that Convention No. 173 had not completed the constitutional process required for incorporation with supralegal hierarchy. Nevertheless, he diverged from Rosenkrantz by noting that Law 24.285 constitutes a valid domestic statute, with binding legal effects. Still, he concluded that,“ contrary to the rulings of lower courts, within the domestic legal framework, Law 24.522— as the later statute— governs the case, replacing Law 24.285 to the extent that the two are incompatible.”
Lastly, Minister García Mansilla contributed an additional line of reasoning: not only was the treaty unratified, but the Argentine State also failed to make an express declaration upon its approval, formally assuming the specific obligations to grant labor claims preferential treatment. He pointed out that Law 24.285 is silent in this regard, which, in his view, renders the treaty invalid or inoperative under domestic law. Convention No. 173, he noted, requires an explicit, rather than tacit, acceptance of such obligations.
The Court ultimately concluded that, since the ratification process was incomplete,
4
Ekmekdjian, Miguel Ángel v Sofovich, Gerardo( CSJN, 7 July 1992) Fallos 315:1492. continued on page 54
37