{"id":12331,"date":"2016-06-17T12:28:56","date_gmt":"2016-06-17T20:28:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/giustiniani-ruben-hector-v-y-p-f-s-a\/"},"modified":"2023-12-11T11:43:24","modified_gmt":"2023-12-11T19:43:24","slug":"giustiniani-ruben-hector-v-ypf-sa-1","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/resource\/giustiniani-ruben-hector-v-ypf-sa-1","title":{"rendered":"Giustiniani, Rub\u00e9n H\u00e9ctor vs. YPFSA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Giustiniani, Rub\u00e9n H\u00e9ctor vs. YPFSA (10 de noviembre de 2015)<br \/>\nCorte Suprema de Argentina&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>La Corte Suprema de Argentina orden\u00f3 a YPF (una petrolera controlada por el Estado) revelar un acuerdo de inversi\u00f3n que firm\u00f3 con la Corporaci\u00f3n Chevron relacionado con la extracci\u00f3n de hidrocarburos no convencionales. YPF afirm\u00f3 que el acuerdo estaba protegido de la divulgaci\u00f3n p\u00fablica. La Corte Suprema determin\u00f3 que a pesar de estar legalmente exenta de requisitos de derecho administrativo para facilitar sus operaciones, YPF realiza actividades de inter\u00e9s p\u00fablico y, por lo tanto, no puede negar solicitudes de informaci\u00f3n a menos que demuestre con suficiente detalle las razones por las cuales se revela la informaci\u00f3n solicitada. perjudicar\u00eda un bien jur\u00eddico tutelado.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>YPF afirm\u00f3 que la divulgaci\u00f3n perjudicar\u00eda su inter\u00e9s legalmente protegido en los secretos industriales, pero la Corte Suprema determin\u00f3 que YPF no demostr\u00f3 suficientemente las razones por las cuales la divulgaci\u00f3n de la informaci\u00f3n solicitada perjudicar\u00eda su inter\u00e9s en los secretos industriales.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Espec\u00edficamente con respecto a la excepci\u00f3n del secreto industrial\/comercial a la divulgaci\u00f3n p\u00fablica, la Corte Suprema dijo que \u201cel secreto s\u00f3lo puede justificarse para proteger cualquier inter\u00e9s que sea igualmente p\u00fablico, por lo tanto, la no divulgaci\u00f3n s\u00f3lo es permisible para &#039;garantizar el respeto a la divulgaci\u00f3n p\u00fablica&#039;. derecho a la reputaci\u00f3n de otros&#039; o &#039;la protecci\u00f3n de la seguridad nacional, el orden p\u00fablico o la salud o la moral p\u00fablicas&#039;\u201d. P\u00e1rr. 25 (citando a Claude Reyes y otros vs. Chile, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (19 de septiembre de 2006)).<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Giustiniani, Rub\u00e9n H\u00e9ctor v. Y.P.F. S.A &nbsp;(November 10, 2015) Supreme Court of Argentina&nbsp; The Argentine Supreme Court ordered&nbsp;YPF (a state-controlled oil company) to disclose an investment agreement it signed with the Chevron Corporation related to extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons. &nbsp;YPF claimed the agreement was protected from public disclosure. &nbsp;The Supreme Court found that despite being [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[34,91],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30103],"region":[667,541],"class_list":["post-12331","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-information","resource-topic-oil-gas","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-argentina","region-south-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12331"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12331"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12331"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12331"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12331"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12331"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}