Buenos Aires, December 16 (NA) – The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that the assets of YPF S.A. do not merge with those of the National State, in a ruling on judicial jurisdiction that has direct implications for the Argentine defense in the courts of New York.
The highest court declared the provincial court of Río Negro competent to investigate a complaint for the usurpation of a plot of land owned by the oil company, considering that there is no direct impact on the State's assets that would justify federal intervention.
The ruling, signed by ministers Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti, is based on law 26.741, which established the expropriation of 51% of YPF's share package in 2012.
The ruling recalled that article 15 of that law establishes that the operation and functioning of the company is framed within the regulations that govern anonymous societies and that “the norms that regulate the administration, management, and control of companies or entities in which the national State or provincial States have participation are not applicable to it.”
Three Pillars of Patrimonial Independence
The Court based its decision on three central arguments about the separation of assets between YPF and the National State, as confirmed by the Argentine News Agency.
First, the oil company has its own legal personality as an anonymous society governed by law 19.550.
Second, its assets are not confused with state assets, as established in article 143 of the National Civil and Commercial Code.
Third, such assets are alien to the control system provided for the National Public Sector in Law 24.156 on Financial Administration.
“The presumed impact on the society's assets is not equivalent to the impact on the National State's assets,” the ruling determined, adding that any repercussion on the State is “only indirect” in its capacity as a majority shareholder.
Rejection of the Thesis of Direct Harm to the Treasury
The court dismissed the thesis that the investigation of alleged crimes against YPF must be processed before the federal justice system for affecting state interests.
“Although the treasury's assets are indirectly affected by the outcome of the trial, this is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on federal courts,” the ministers held.
The Court cited precedents from 1978 and 1981 where it had already established that “the intervention of the federal jurisdiction does not correspond” in investigations of crimes against societies with majority state participation “for that single circumstance.”
The highest court explained that the National Constitution “only imposes the action of the exceptional jurisdiction when the Nation is a party and not necessarily in all cases in which its assets may suffer harm, more or less indirectly.”
Distinction with Cases of Direct State Property
The ruling differentiated this case from previous precedents where federal jurisdiction had been declared.
It held that “no element of judgment is observed that justifies the intervention of the federal jurisdiction, which is limited and of restrictive application.”
Rosatti recalled the Court's jurisprudence that establishes the exceptional nature of the federal jurisdiction, citing precedents from 2025 and 2016.
“It corresponds to the local court to continue the investigation,” he concluded.
The case was filed in the Forum of Judges of Viedma, First Judicial Circumscription of the Province of Río Negro, as ordered by the ruling digitally signed on December 11, 2025.
