Mining concessions: SCJN upholds public bidding

The Court addressed a central argument put forward by private parties: that the reform disregarded vested rights of those who had obtained or expected to obtain concessions under the previous regime. The Supreme Court rejected this position based on a key distinction in administrative law, arguing that not every protected interest constitutes a vested right.

In this regard, the Court determined that:

1. The change to public bidding is valid. The fact that the new regime establishes that mining concessions are only granted through public bidding, in contrast to the previous “first applicant” scheme, does not violate vested rights, since private parties did not have a consolidated right to obtain concessions under the previous regime.
2. The limitation of extensions is not retroactive. The reduction of the extension period (from up to 50 years to a single extension of 25 years) is also not unconstitutional, since the extension does not form part of the core of the vested right, but rather constitutes an expectation of right, subject to future conditions.
3. Existing titles are protected, but not their extensions. The Court emphasized that concessions granted before the reform retain their validity in accordance with their titles. However, this does not imply that their holders have an automatic right to their renewal or extension under the previous conditions.
4. There is no right to the immutability of the legal framework. The criterion reinforces the power of the legislator to modify the concessions regime based on public policy, without this implying, in itself, a constitutional violation.

In sum, the Court consolidates a restrictive understanding of “vested rights” in matters of administrative concessions, particularly in regulated sectors such as mining.

Authored by Mauricio Llamas and Sofia de Llano.