Breeders’ Rights – Overreach of Indigenous Justice – JUDGMENT 4-20-EI/24

By Judgment 4-20-EI/24 (“Judgment”), issued on August 29, 2024, in case 4-20-EI, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court (“Court”) accepted the constitutional action filed by the Ecuadorian IP Office (“SENADI”) against the Resolution of Indigenous Justice No. 003-CPKA-2020 (the “Resolution”), issued by the Kayambi People Confederation. The Court stated that the Resolution restricted SENADI’s competencies regarding compliance procedures for the non-payment of royalties for using protected breder´s rights in Ecuador, establishing that Indigenous Justice lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its decision scope.

The Resolution ordered, among other aspects, that breeders could modify and renegotiate licensing contracts for breeder´s rights prohibited SENADI from conducting administrative inspections of such rights within the Kayambi territory, and compelled SENADI to adjust the rates for Intellectual Property proceedings. The Resolution also urged the Competence Agency to analyze the existence or absence of economic concentration.

SENADI challenged the Resolution through a constitutional action, arguing that its rights were affected by not being served or participating in the Indigenous trial and that the Resolution contained measures interfering with SENADI’s competencies. The Court stated that by Article 65 of the Constitutional Law (LOGJCC), any person or community affected by Indigenous Justice decisions can challenge them before the Constitutional Court, including state institutions whose procedural rights or legal competencies have been harmed, thus reaffirming SENADI’s active legitimacy.

The Judgment analyzed if the Resolution complies with the requirements to be challengeable: (i) if it comes from an indigenous authority acting in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions and (ii) if it refers to an internal conflict in which its laws and proceedings have been applied. The Court concluded that even though the Kayambi People Confederation acted as an indigenous authority with its rights and issued the Resolution in an “Indigenous Jurisdictional Assembly,” it overstepped and exceeded its jurisdictional scope since it did not resolve an internal conflict of the community. By failing to meet the requirements, the Resolution illegally established broad regulation over the commercial situation of flower production without clarifying how this dynamic relates to and affects the community’s values and the coexistence among its members.