Before we begin with the judgement, it is important to point out the projects of GINU SCA.

In 1962, Mr. Bernard Merens and Mrs Geneviève Merens née Nogent, settle down in Argentina and formalize a family Company, Ginu Commandite Company.

In 1968, GINU SCA acquires an urban land of 2.000.000m2 (200 Hectares) in the city of Formosa, deciding in 1974 to parcel out its front part in approximately 3.000 building plots.

One year later, in a first stage, the Company executes, with the municipal authorization, the division of 559.340m2 (56 Hectares) in 1.250 building plots.

Under the pressure of the demand, GINU SCA promises to sell 243 building plots.

The land of GINU SCA had two parts that were very dissimilar one from another: a high and flat part located between the streams that run through it, and a low and undulated part.

After having sold 243 building plots and obtaining a first support from the “Banco Hipotecario” to finance the buildings, GINU SCA decides to form a building company in order to sell the remaining building plots, each one together with its own house according to the maps given buy the buyer.

Completely executed, this parceling out would have given a house and a yard to 9.000 or 10.000 inhabitants in Formosa, who, besides, would have enjoyed of an magnificent green space of 50 Hectares, having the low and undulated part a large and beautiful lagoon and a small wood of laurel.

This project, which responded to an urgent social need of the city of Formosa, was not a utopian subject.
In fact, after the land expropriation took place, an autharchical body of the Government (Provincial Institute for Housing), with an overwhelming administrative structure, using funds of the Provincial Treasury and the Federal (Conavi), started the construction of large housing complexes, being all of the houses equal and stuck one to each other. The project of GINU SCA is recorded in the Minutes of the Meetings, whose copies constitute probatory documents sent to the Courts.

Development of the judgement

1976 – The Major of the Municipality of Formosa informed Mr. MERENS he was about to recommend the Provincial Government the expropriation of 1.600.000m2 of its urban land for the execution of the city’s Industrial Park.

At the beginning of September of 1976, the military authorities tried to frighten Mr. Merens in order to donate without any compensation the 1.600.000m2 to the Province. Mr. Merens refused to do so. However, by way of his letter dated November 5, he informed the Major of Formosa the following proposal:

On one hand, the Municipality gives up to the expropriation of the parcel of 559.340m2, parceled out with municipal authorization and on the other hand, GINU SCA, donates 30 Hectares for free and gives another 70 Hectares in exchange for a fiscal field located anywhere in the Province. Thus, the Province could count with a surface of 100 Hectares (1.000.000m2) for the future Industrial Park without paying one cent. This generous proposal was never replied.

Then, Mr. Merens received serious threats that kept coming in the course of the months. Since at that time there was an uncontrollable repression, Mr. Merens took the decision of leaving the country, and whenever possible, to settle down with his family in Asuncion, Paraguay.

On December 14th, the military Government of Formosa promulgated the Law 447/76 for the expropriation of 1.600.000m2 (160 Hectares) which included the parceled out parcel.

1977 – On April 15th, the Government presents the expropriation Claim. However, it deposited the land’s fiscal value of 1976, i.e., 482.619 pesos/law instead of the land’s fiscal value of 1977 which was of 4.671.552 pesos/law. Besides, to the incomplete consignation of the amount that corresponded to deposit,
it must be added the mistake made by the actress of presenting the deposit’s bill in the wrong Court, which avoided the competent Judge from executing the notification of the Claim within the terms of the Law and consequently it avoided GINU SCA from replying it and from collecting the wrong fiscal amount.

Thus, on June 24th, the Judge ordered the suspension of the judicial procedure by request of the military Government, who stated to base on the terms of Article 79 of the new Law 490 for expropriation while the Claim’s notification was not ordered yet.

Whilst the judicial procedure was suspended, on August 12th, the Government requested and obtained the judicial mandate for the taking over of the land. This measure was executed on that same day, which should have caused, as a matter of fact, the pursuit of the cause.

1978 – These irregularities and the lack of news regarding the extrajudicial proposal the Government should have presented, were set forth by GINU SCA. Then, the Court summoned the Province to put the offer to which it was basing on into proper form. This resolution, once it was appealed, avoided GINU SCA again from replying the Claim and from collecting the incomplete consigned amount.

However, on January 17th, i.e., one year after the promulgation of the Law 447 for expropriation GINU SCA was notified in regard to the extrajudicial administrative proposal, by which the Government was offering as indemnification for the expropriated urban land of 1.600.000m2, the amount of 100.000 pesos per Hectare, without any reference to real sale prices of neighboring lands or even lands that were located faraway from the expropriated land. This offer, deemed as arbitrary and ridiculous was rejected by GINU SCA, who made a counterproposal, resorting to the promotion prices fixed by the expropriating State itself for the rural building plot NR. 62 of the city of Formosa through the Decree NR. 855/77.

On August 22nd, the military Government rejected our counterproposal claiming that our prices were “excessively high” and without deigns to object them in a rational manner.

On October 31st, the Superior Court ordered the reestablishment of the judgement, which allowed GINU SCA to reply de Claim and to collect, two years after the promulgation of the expropriation law, a wrong fiscal value which represented the tenth part of the real fiscal value, and which, due to the very strong inflation existing at that time, had decreased to an insignificant amount.

1983 – On May 31st, the military Government promulgated the Law 1.313 for the reduction of the expropriated surface of 1.600.000m2 to 1.353.316m2, disaffecting thus a surface of 246.684m2 that constitutes a useless strip that runs along the Chaja creek, for almost 2.000 meters, being said reduction contradictory to Article 9 of the Law 490 for expropriation that obliges the expropriator to expropriate the part of the land which the expropriation makes inadequate to any autonomous exploitation and it is also contradictory to Article 7 of the Law 82 for expropriation.

On June 17th, the Government, claiming the payment of the wrong fiscal value, requested the conveyance of the expropriated land by virtue of Article 10 of the Law 490 for expropriation, amended by the Law 1.301. The de facto military Government promulgated both laws.

These laws are obviously contradictory to Article 17 of the National Constitution that says: “The property is inviolable and no inhabitant of the Nation can be deprived of it, but by virtue of sentence founded on the Law. The expropriation because of public utility must be qualified by the Law and previously indemnified” and also Article 18 of the same Constitution that says: “No inhabitant of the Nation can be punished without previous trial founded on earlier law to the fact of the trial”.... So, the National Constitution does not authorize the conveyance of the expropriated property’s title but after the total payment of the indemnification and not of the amount of the fiscal appraisal.

1989 – On February 3rd, GINU SCA gives up his opposition to the reduction of the expropriated surface in these words:
“I hereby wish to point out that this trial begun in 1977, i.e., 12 long years of sinuous, proceedings that prejudices only to the expropriated one, have passed, since the actress who from the beginning has taken over all of the building plots that form the expropriated surface and has sold them to different private companies or state bodies, thus, together with the desistance I wish to state my opposition to the reduction of the expropriated surface.”

1990 – On October 1st, GINU SCA desists from its opposition to the conveyance in the following words:
“....it is consequently clear that this desistance is set forth by the Defendant, overwhelmed by the excessive slowness presented by this expropriating trial – 13 years – not being able, due to many reasons, to reach the stage of judgement.”

The requirements for the reduction of the expropriated surface and regarding the conveyance meant, for GINU SCA, the loss of seven years and four months.

1993 – On May 10th, i.e., two years and eight months after the desistance of GINU SCA regarding its opposition to the reduction of the expropriated surface and to the conveyance and 16 years later the beginning of said trial, the Court of First Instance pronounced its sentence.

Pursuant to the Provincial Law NR 82, under which the expropriation trial was attended, the appraisal of an expropriated property must be done based on “its objective value” (Art. 10), considering “its function” (Art. 11).

The real and objective value of a property, considering its function is no other but the one the Jury would have when fulfilling its natural function. This is the way it was understood by the doctrine and by a constant and plentiful jurisprudence.

Now, the own features of the urban land, its privileged location within the municipal limits of the city of Formosa, the municipal authorization to parcel out 40% of its surface in building plots of 200 and 300m2, the division that was completely executed on it with landmarks and stakes, and finally, the commercial success of the parceling out with the signing of 243 promises for sale, combine to state without objections that the immediate destiny of the expropriated land was the parceling out into building plots, a destiny which regretfully was cut short by the expropriation.

Then, being the value of the expropriated land the value it would have had when fulfilling its natural function, we can state without fear of making a mistake that, its real and objective value is the one that comes out of the application to the expressed expropriated surface in m2 of the sale prices per m2 that arise from the 243 purchase & sale bills, which represent without objections, the market prices at the date of the signing of said bills. Besides, lets point out that these prices match exactly with those declared by the real estate companies called to give evidence. 

Only this base, the amount of the fair indemnification at the date of the expropriation, turns out in 1.648.878.420 pesos/law per Hectare, recommended by the 4 officials of the Appraisals Council against the unanimous opinion of its independent members. Said price of 100.000 pesos per Hectare was by chance the one that was arbitrarily fixed by the military authorities in its extrajudicial proposal. They tried to justify it by appealing to a taxation nomenclature that was completely outdated and unreal.

After the fall of the Military Dictatorship, the new democratic Government of Formosa and the Court of First Instance ratified without hesitation the above-mentioned price, stipulating thus an indemnification for the amount of 13.533.610 pesos/law.

During the first seven years, said trial was transmitted under the regime of the Dictatorship, i.e., when the military authorities were the owners of the three powers of State (Executive, Judicial and Legislative Powers).
Once the Dictatorship felt, the Democracy Courts, instead of verifying the procedures ordered by the military Government, ratified all of their acts of prepotency.

Not one human being in its right mind could understand the indemnification of an urban land for less than a hundred times the price obtained by the expropriated person when selling 243 building plots of it.

1994 – On May 19th, the Court passes its sentence which acknowledges the existence of 243 purchase & sale bills regarding the building plots located within the expropriated land, however, it ignores them by passing a sentence that confirms the First Instance.

On October 20th, the Council agrees the admissibility of the appeal to the Superior Court of the Province.

On November 22nd, the Attorney General of the Province passes its judgement, which recommends voiding the sentence for considering it as arbitrary.

Following, we are hereby quoting some considerations of the Attorney General:

The nomination of the expropriated property as rural by the Official Land Register and by the tributary charges on the matter, is merely formal since it is common knowledge that many lands that are densely inhabited have the same denomination given by the Official Land Register in the city of Formosa, which shows that said denomination is completely outdated.

That said parceling out, despite the lack of final municipal approval, had the O.K. after a delay in payment towards the Municipal Administration, although it existed long before the promulgation of the Law 447, a paralysis in the procedure that somehow is imputable to the now appellant party, but nevertheless and as a matter of fact, said parceling out was executed and the building plots were sold and some of them, at the time of the procedures for the taking over were already occupied by their owners....

The objective value was defined by the Nation’s Supreme Court (Judgement NR 217.804) as the real value of something for the majority at the market of goods of said species, concerning to the place of the expropriated and at the time of the deprivement.

The Attorney General concludes:

Therefore and pursuant to the discernment of the Attorney General’s Office, the passing of a new sentence by the inferior is necessary, as well as to carry the means to an extreme in order to reach to a more correct monetary estimation of the expropriated land, consequently proceeding to void the Judgment 3.118/94, pages 581/597 for considering it as arbitrary.

1995 – On September 7th, the Superior Court passes its sentence. It neither took into consideration the recommendations given by the Attorney General nor refuteed them, which constitutes a case of nullity for this sentence.

After considering us as contradictories and confused, it confirms the appealed sentence.

On November 15th, the Superior Court states the admissibility for the federal extraordinary appeal. 

1996 – On November 5th, the Nation’s Supreme Court states the appeal as inadmissible without justifying its decision:

Buenos Aires, November 5th, 1996.

Seeing the records of the case denominated:
“Province of Formosa vs. GINU SCA ref. to expropriation”.

Considering:
that the extraordinary appeal is inadmissible
(Art. 280 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Procedure of the Nation)
therefore the inferred appeal is refused.
Notify and return it.

By agreeing the admissibility, the Superior Court of Formosa requested the highest Court of the Nation to give the final word and the Supreme Court denied, appealing to the Article 280, which is hereby copied as follows:

When the Supreme Court acknowledges by extraordinary appeal, the reception of the case shall imply the summon of case’s records. The Court, pursuant to its sound judgement, just by invoking this norm, may reject the extraordinary appeal due to the lack of sufficient federal offence or when the set forth matters were insubstantial or without importance.

Said denial of justice, despite being legalized by the Article 280 of the CCCP, always produces a denial of justice that leaves the trial without final judgement, i.e., unfinished; and GINU SCA, helpless.

The Courts determined the amount for the indemnification due to GINU SCA as if the expropriated land were an abstract fraction of field without any specific location, without a past or a destiny, ratifying the arbitrary price of 100.000 pesos/law per Hectare established with prepotency by the Military Dictatorship, or in other words, 10 pesos/law per square meter.

However, GINU SCA estimated the price of the land based on the concrete reality of the sale prices of 243 building plots located within the to date expropriated land, which is equivalent to 1.245,05 pesos/law per square meter.

Summarizing the updated values established by the Courts and the prices pretended by GINU SCA, lets observe the following table:
 

1 peso = 1 dollar	Courts	GINU SCA
Land value	79.091  pesos	10.332.148  pesos
Value of each expropiated m2	0,06  pesos	7,61 pesos
Value of one building plot	26 pesos	3.444 peso

In this table we can observe that the values established by the Courts are derisory and completely out of the real estate’s market from the city of Formosa at that time, while the values pretended by GINU SCA are those that were in force at the time of the expropriation, as confirmed by the real estate agencies that were summoned for testimony.

Then, we repeat one more time that due to the unusual length of the trial and to the trifling amount for the indemnification, the expropriation of the GINU SCA’s land is nothing but a confiscation.