In a historical failure, the Constitutional Court He knocked down Aguardiente Rental Monopoly After studying the case of the restriction imposed by the Directorate of Revenue and Tax Managementattached to the Ministry of Finance of Cundinamarcato the Manzanares yellow to be marketed in the department.
With the decision they declare themselves inexeensary of the First and second subsections of article 28 of Law 1816 of 2016which empowers that it empowered the departments that produce brandy to restrict the sale of other brands for up to six years.
(You can read: How to recognize adulterated alcohol through its label in Colombia?).
Some numerals that were analyzed by this court, after demands filed months after the departure of the capital market of yellow.
“The Chamber concluded: First, the demanded provisions affect ‘Prima Facie’, free competition and freedom of choice of consumers”The Court said in a brief statement.
Yellow Manzanares
As a second argument, he found that the measure prosecuted “does not meet the suitability requirement“And finally”He found that the accused provision completely restricts the freedom of choice of consumers who inhabit the departments in which the sued power is exercised, since it absolutely restricts the possibility that they freely choose between different suppliers which brandy wishes”
For the Court, the measure in free competition “It is replicated in the exercise of the freedom of choice of consumers”
(You may be interested: How many years in prison would who sell adulterated alcohol in Colombia?).
“The measure implies that brandy bidders are reduced to one, so that brandy consumers are completely deprived of the liberty of choosing the brandy of the brandy they will consume”, Justified the Court when making its decision.
And he added: “The freedom to choose what type of brandy will consume is reduced to the varieties produced by the departmental liquor industry”
Constitutional Court
In his study, the Court recalled that constitutional jurisprudence has been peaceful by pointing out that, although the right to freedom of choice of “Consumers is not absolute and can be limited by law, the complete restriction of freedom of election is contrary to the Political Constitution”
(You may be interested: ‘Caldas Licorera will sell 38 million units in 2024’).
In addition, the Court concluded that the accused norms “They exceed and overflow what the Constitution indicates by allowing monopolies as rental arbitration and arbitrarily restricted economic freedom, free economic competence and freedom of choice of consumers, which is why they are not protected by the provisions of articles 78 , 333 and 336 of the Political Constitution”
In its statement, the Court said that in the decision the votes saved the Magistrates Natalia Ángora, Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera and magistrates Vladimir Fernández Andrade and Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo.
Time – Justice
