Protection appeal against SCJ accepted for resuming call for bids for casino licenses

In his libel, the actor stated that it is the holder of a license and a gambling casino operating permit, obtained under the protection of Law 19,995, the purpose of which was to establish tourist infrastructure in the regions of the country, privileging the creation of comprehensive entertainment centers, which prompted large investments in matters related to those related to casinos and games.

He indicated that since obtaining these authorizations he has had to face several adverse events, such as the 2010 earthquake and the Covid-19 pandemic, which has reduced the possibility of being able to operate the 15 effective years granted in his permit, generating a obvious harm.

He maintains that his situation has been further aggravated by the actions of the Superintendency, which in 2021 resumed the call for a new bidding for casino licenses and the issuance of permits, when the country continues to face the health emergency caused by the Covid-19. What it considers illegal and arbitrary, while the respondent disregards the motivations of the legislator of Law 19,995.

He explains that in 2020 the institution resolved that the Covid-19 pandemic seriously affected the country, so there were sufficient elements to suspend the process of granting casino permits, in order to ensure its effectiveness, normal operation and allow the greatest competition in that process. Against which, he maintains that there is no substantial variation with the current circumstances, in which the health emergency continues.

For this reason, it argues that the call for bids and delivery of permits violates the guarantees recognized in Article 19 Nº2 and Nº24 of the Constitution, and requests that the denounced act be annulled.

The Court of Santiago declared the appeal inadmissible, considering that “it does not meet the requirements that allow it to be declared admissible, since what was raised by the appellant must be discussed and proven in a declaratory proceeding, therefore, it is not the ideal way to effect, which is contrary to the precautionary nature of the protection action ”.

The Supreme Court reversed the resolution and declared the appeal admissible, considering that the merits of the antecedents make it clear that facts that may eventually constitute a violation of the fundamental guarantees indicated in Article 20 of the Constitution have been mentioned in the libel, reason why the appeal must be accepted for processing.

See text of the resolution Supreme Court Rol No. 60.862-2021 and Santiago Court Rol No. 37.309-2021 and the appeal.