Clash of Titans continued from page 37 Convention No. 173 cannot override the statutory priority order enshrined in Articles 239 et seq. of the Bankruptcy Law. So, it granted the AFIP’ s( Federal Tax Authority’ s) complaint and reinstated the statutory ranking, thereby restoring tax claims to their original-legal- position of priority. Doctrinal Debate The Acevedo ruling sparked divided reactions. Some legal scholars 5 support the decision, viewing it as a necessary reordering of the normative system in line with constitutional principles of legality and hierarchical supremacy. They emphasize the importance of adhering to the proper treaty-making process and caution against allowing judicial precedents— such as Pinturas— to undermine legal certainty through expansive and unwarranted interpretations of international instruments. Others 6 see Acevedo as an institutional reaffirmation by the Supreme Court, reasserting the primacy of domestic law over supranational aspirations or any perceived surrender of normative sovereignty.
Indeed, some argue that Acevedo dismantles the legal architecture that, for over a decade, allowed courts— particularly the SCJN— to penetrate the“ closed” system of privileges set
54 forth in the BL. That architecture had enabled judges to assign judicially constructed payment priorities to certain claims by broadly interpreting international treaties with domestic legal status 7.
5
Fernando Javier Marcos, The Priority of Labour Claims in Insolvency Proceedings and the New Doctrine of the Supreme Court: The“ Acevedo” Ruling RC D 254 / 2025. Walter F Carnota, The Ratification of International Treaties: Its Impact on Insolvency Priorities( Buenos Aires, Thomson Reuters, 5 June 2025) LA LEY 2025-C, Year LXXXIX, No 104.
6
Nahuel N Espinillo, Acevedo: The Ratification of National Sovereignty( Buenos Aires, Thomson Reuters, 5 June 2025) LA LEY 2025-C, Year LXXXIX, No 104, TR LALEY AR / DOC / 1325 / 2025.
7
Javier A Lorente and Paula Cecilia Cattelán, The“ Acevedo” Ruling and a Limit to the Judicial Creation of Priorities: Is This Just the Beginning of a Return to the
On the other hand, several respected voices in Argentine legal doctrine 8 have criticized the ruling, contending that it disregards the object and purpose of ILO Convention No. 173. They argue that the treaty’ s protective aims remain relevant under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which obligates States to refrain from acts that defeat the object and purpose of a treaty pending its formal entry into force.
Additionally, they point out that for over ten years, the Argentine State consistently applied the Pinturas doctrine, thereby creating legitimate expectations among labor creditors and reinforcing the principle of reliance on established jurisprudence.
In the words of one commentator:“ The true issue in Acevedo is not merely the acknowledgment that the Convention is not technically in force, but rather the failure to engage with the underlying conflict— the effective erosion of labor protections when confronted with the tax authority.” 9. Conclusion This controversy warrants a broader reflection on a unique feature of the conflict: it is the State itself, through its tax agency, that litigates against the labor creditor, despite the State’ s constitutional and international obligations to uphold labor rights and social security protections.
Closed System?, paper presented at the LXXI Meeting of Commercial Law Institutes of the Province of Buenos Aires( La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, 6 – 7 June 2025).
8
Ana C Alonso and Patricia A Fernández Andreani, Everything Changes Except What Needs to Change: Reflections Derived from the“ Acevedo” Case( Buenos Aires, Thomson Reuters, 5 June 2025) LA LEY 2025-C, Year LXXXIX, No 104. Gabriela F Boquín, The Erroneous Abandonment of a Wrong Precedent( Buenos Aires, Thomson Reuters, 5 June 2025) LA LEY 2025-C, Year LXXXIX, No 104.
9
Alexis M Marega, The Mercurial Position of the Supreme Court Regarding Insolvency Privileges: On the“ Acevedo” Ruling( Buenos Aires, Thomson Reuters, 5 June 2025) LA LEY 2025-C, Year LXXXIX, No 104, TR LALEY AR / DOC / 1323 / 2025.
54