Providing effective mechanisms to fight barriers to competition in Mexico

1

Barcelona Graduate School of Economics

Master in Competition and Market Regulation

Academic Year 2014/2015

Master Project

Providing effective mechanisms to fight

barriers to competition in Mexico

June, 2015

Fernando Cota Acuña1

Abstract

The project analyses the current legal faculties that the Mexican Competition Authority has

to fight and remove barriers to competition. Given the limited powers of the authority and

the pervasive character of those barriers and their negative impact on Mexico’s economy, the

Authority’s faculties are considered insufficient.

Then the project studies the Spanish Ley de Garantía de Unidad de Mercado and how that

law provides effective mechanisms to fight some barriers to competition.

Finally, considering Mexico’s constitutional and institutional framework, the project

proposes some modifications in the Competition Law in order to incorporate those

mechanisms.

1 Holder of the Fundación BBVA Scholarship.

2

INDEX

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..……3

The importance of fighting regulatory barriers to competition …………………………4

A brief history of the Commission’s opinions …………………………………...………..4

A glance to the regulatory framework in Mexico …..…………………………………….6

What can be done? Spanish experience …………………………………………...………8

Mexico conditions …………………………………………………………………..…….11

Reforming Mexico’s Law …………………………………………………………….…..13

Conclusion …………………………….…………………………………………………..15

References ……………………………………………………………………………...…17

Annex ………………………………………………………………………………….…..19

3

Introduction

In Mexico, the recent Constitutional reform on telecommunications and economic

competition (2013) allowed the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (COFECE)

to order measures to remove barriers to the competition and free participation in the markets.2

Meanwhile, the implementing law defines such barriers as, among others, the legal provisions

issued by any level of government that unduly impede or distort the competition process and

free participation in the markets.3

However, the same law does not provide effective mechanisms to order such measures. In

fact, the Federal Law of Economic Competition (LFCE) only allows COFECE (1) to issue

non-binding opinions regarding those legal barriers to competition and (2) to notify to the

Federal Government the existence of barriers at the state and municipal level. Then it would

be on the Federal Legal Counselor (a direct subordinate of the President of the Republic) to

decide whether to initiate a constitutional challenge or not.

Those mechanisms are insufficient to fulfil the Constitutional mandate of removing barriers

to competition. First, as will be discussed later, non-binding opinions are often worth the

2 Article 28, Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico:

“[…]

The State will have a Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica, that will be an autonomous body

[…] that will have as its object to guarantee the free competition, as well to prevent, investigate and

fight the monopolies, the monopolistic practices, the concentrations and other restrictions to the

efficient functioning of the markets, in the terms that this Constitution and the laws establish. The

Commission will have the necessary faculties to comply effectively its object, between them, the

faculty to order measures to remove barriers to the competition and free participation in the

markets; to regulate access to essential facilities, and to order divestitures of the undertakings’ assets,

rights, social shares or stocks, in the necessary proportions to eliminate anti-competitive effects.

[…]”

3 Federal Law of Economic Competition: Article 3. For the purposes of this Act, it is defined:

[...] IV. Barriers to competition and free participation in the markets: [among others] the legal

provisions issued by any level of government that unduly impede or distort the process of competition

and free participation in the markets; […]

4

paper. Second, the Federal Legal Counsel is a politically motivated body that does not have

the right incentives to challenge State and municipal anti-competitive regulations. Last, there

is no way to challenge an anti-competitive federal regulation.

After considering Mexico’s situation. I analyze a recent Spanish law that provides adequate

mechanism to deal with such barriers. Finally, a set of recommendations in order to adapt

those mechanism to Mexico’s reality are laid out.

The importance of fighting regulatory barriers to competition

Regulatory barriers to competition are different legal provisions that restrict the behavior of

economic agents. In particular, barriers to competition may restrict entry, transit or different

kinds of conduct in the markets. In some cases, those barriers may be justified for economic,

social or political considerations. However, in other cases those barriers are result of the

pressure of economic agents that want to be protected from the competitive pressure or the

hubris and ignorance of some politicians that think that they can steer and plan the economy

with a better outcome that the one that result from the competitive process.

Regulatory barriers to competition have negative impact in entry and innovation in the

markets and they may favor collusion. All this can have as a result higher prices, less quality,

less innovation and, in general, a reduction in the consumer surplus and society welfare.

Moreover, their negatives effects are not only economic. Regulatory barriers have a negative

impact in terms of fairness since they restrict the freedom of consumers and entrants in the

marketplace.

A brief history of the Commission’s opinions

The first LFCE (1992) gave the authority to the Comisión Federal de Competencia (CFC) to

issue non-binding opinions “regarding adjustments to the programs and policies of the federal

government when they could have effects that may be contrary to the competition and free

5

participation in the markets, or regarding the impact on the competition of laws, regulations,

agreements and administrative acts.”4

According to the same law, when requested by the Federal Executive, CFC had the faculty

to “issue opinions on legislative bills and proposal of regulations with regard to the free

competition aspects”.5

Since those opinions were non-binding, the governments and legislatures could consider

them or simply ignore it. Further reforms of the LFCE broadened the scope of the CFC’s

opinions. In that regard, CFC had the faculty to issue opinions regarding not only law

initiatives and proposals of secondary legislation but also current laws and regulations, and

not only at the federal level but in States and municipalities.6

However, the most important change was the creation of binding opinions (2011). The CFC

could issue them “to the agencies of the Federal Government, regarding adjustments to

programs and policies, as well as on drafts of secondary regulation.” The recommendations

settled out in those opinions were “mandatory for agencies or entities to whom they are

addressed, unless the President of the Republic vetoes them.”7

The power to issue binding opinions was short lived and there was only one opinion of that

kind. First, in 2011 the Commission issued a regular non-binding opinion on a regulatory

project to grant an exclusive right to use the word “Agave” (a common name) to the producers

of tequila, mezcal and bacanora. However, in 2012 since the regulatory process seemed to

go on, the Commission decided to issue a binding opinion on the same terms. Thanks to that,

the regulatory process was definitely halted.8 This ephemeral experience proved that it was

possible to limit directly and effectively an anti-competitive regulation.

One year later, the Constitutional reform on telecommunications and economic competition

(2013) established the competition policy as a State Policy and created the COFECE as an

4 Primer Informe Anual, Comisión Federal de Competencia 1993-1994

5 Primer Informe Anual, Comisión Federal de Competencia 1993-1994

6 Web of the extinct CFC: http://189.206.114.203/index-cfc.php?Itemid=656

7 Web of the extinct CFC: http://189.206.114.203/index-cfc.php?Itemid=656

8 Informe Anual 2012, Comisión Federal de Competencia

6

autonomous and independent institution that substituted the decentralized CFC. As we stated,

that Constitutional reform gave COFECE the faculty to impose measures in order to remove

barriers to the competition but gave no effective mechanism to remove the regulatory

barriers. In fact, the new LFCE (2014) took one step back and removed the possibility of

issuing the binding opinions.

Nowadays the COFECE can (1) issue non-binding opinions regarding those legal barriers to

competition and (2) notify to the Federal Government the existence of barriers at the state

and municipal level. Then it would be on the Federal Legal Counselor (a direct subordinate

of the President of the Republic) to decide whether to initiate a constitutional challenge.9

A glance to the regulatory framework in Mexico

It is not the purpose of this project to analyze in detail how burdensome and pervasive are

the regulatory barriers to competition in Mexico. It will be sufficient to state that this concern

is shared by and large.

The OECD Indicators of Product Market Regulation show that Mexico has one of worst

regulatory environments in terms of competition.10

Source: OECD’s Indicators of Product Market Regulation Homepage

9 Ley Federal de Competencia Económica, 2014

10 http://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/indicatorsofproductmarketregulationhomepage.htm

7

According to the OECD, Mexico grades especially low in barriers to entrepreneurship,

administrative burdens to start ups, protection of incumbents, antitrust exemptions, barriers

in network sectors and other barriers to trade and invest.

It is also remarkable the dispersion inside the country due to regulatory differences. The

World Bank Subnational Doing Business Report, point out that although Mexico has

improved on a general level there is “a wide performance gap between Mexican states.”11

The competition authority shares similar concerns. COFECE’s Chairman Alejandra Palacios

has pointed out that:

“Often the lack of competition is not the result of the firm’s anti-competitive behavior

but regulatory and public policy criteria that inhibit it. They come from the State and

sometimes they are the most harmful and the most difficult to remove.

Usually we find that their regulations limit the number of firms and consequently

artificially reduce supply. [...] They delimit geographical areas to deliver goods and

services [...], limit the ability of firms to compete. […] COFECE has also met with

local regulation that limits the information available to consumers.”12

We can find in the CFC’s and COFECE’s opinions good examples of this kind of restrictions

that, it should be stressed again, were approved and/or remain in force despite those opinions:

In February 2015, COFECE issued an opinion against a bill from the Jalisco

Legislature that discriminated in public procurement between local and non-local

suppliers.13

In November 2013, COFECE issued an opinion against different regulations in the

Baja California Sur that gave the Governor the power to restrict the entry of milk and

meat from other States. Those regulations also established that associations of

11 Doing Business en México 2014, Doing Business Subnational, World Bank, 2014

12 Speech: “Reforma en materia de Competencia Económica”, Alejandra Palacios Prieto, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAW4r5JHrgI

13 http://www.cfc.gob.mx:8080/cfcresoluciones/docs/Mercados%20Regulados/V5/12/1960829.pdf

8

producers of milk and meat have to give its approval before producers in other

Mexican states can sell there their products.14

In April 2013, CFC issued an opinion against the Law of Traffic and Transportation

of the State of Veracruz that, among other things, allowed incumbents to participate

in the issuance of licenses for the entrants and limited the scope of the transport

licenses to just one municipality.15

To sum up: the problem then is twofold. The regulatory barriers to competition are not only

significantly pernicious but they are also very difficult to put down.

It is not sufficient to rely only on a strategy of advocacy given the limited resources of the

Competition Authority, the big incentives for certain groups to protect their privileges and

prevent competition and the unclear (when not perverse) incentives of the States and

municipalities.

What can be done? Spanish experience

Spain had and has a similar problematic. Since the transition to democracy, the Kingdom of

Spain abandoned its centralism and became a “State of Autonomies” divided in 19 regional

autonomous governments with one of the highest levels of decentralization in the world.

While this process of decentralization had advantages, it resulted in 17 different economic

legislations that contained important differences in economic barriers to competition. Some

of those barriers prevent the entry of firms in the different jurisdictions.

To solve this problems, on December 9 of 2013 the Parliament of Spain approved [and the

King sanctioned] the Law of Guarantee of Market Unity (Ley de Garantía de Unidad de

Mercado or LGUM). According to its preamble:

“[T]his Act seeks to establish the basic principles and rules that […] ensure market

unity to create a much more favorable to competition and investment environment,

14 http://www.cfc.gob.mx:8080/cfcresoluciones/docs/Mercados%20Regulados/V4/11/1785968.pdf

15 http://www.cfc.gob.mx:8080/cfcresoluciones/docs/Mercados%20Regulados/V4/11/1726878.pdf

9

by enabling operators to benefit from the gains of a larger market in terms of

productivity and costs, on behalf of job creation and growth, and ultimately benefit

consumers and users that will have greater access to quality products and services.”

16

Inspired in the European Union treaties,17 the LGUM seeks to guarantee the liberties of

establishment, movement and access to markets across the country. In this regard, the LGUM

allows that firms that operate in different jurisdictions may only apply the rules of their

jurisdiction of origin, without adapting it to the destination. Moreover, companies with

multiple locations can choose the one that will be considered as a territory of origin.18 Before

the LGUM a firm that wanted to enter in a different jurisdiction must adapt to the different

licenses, rules and other regulations. This affected negatively its productivity and costs and,

more generally, the Spain competitiveness.

To enforce that right the LGUM provides some relevant procedures:

Articles 26 and 28 of the LGUM

The LGUM provides in its articles 26 and 28 other procedures that work on a non-binding

way.

Article 26 provides that any economic agent, consumer or their representatives can complaint

the Council for the Unity of the Market (CUM) about any obstacle to the freedom of

establishment, movement and access to markets, including National and regional laws. In

order to solve the complaint, the CUM will inform the authority responsible of the regulation.

Then the responsible authority may inform within 15 days what resolution it will adopt in

order to solve the issue. If the authority does not adopt any solution or if the economic agent

is not satisfied with the solution, they can resort to the provisions of article 27.

Article 28 provides that any economic agent, consumer or their representatives can inform

the Council for the Unity of the Market (CUM) about any obstacle to the freedom of

16 Preamble, Ley de Garantía de Unidad de Mercado, 2013

17 The European treaties established the so-called “four freedoms” of the European single market:

free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. 18 Article 19, Ley de Garantía de Unidad de Mercado, 2013

10

establishment, movement and access to markets, including National and regional laws. Then,

the CUM will try to arrive to some commitments from the authority in order to remove the

barriers. Again, if no solution is arrived, the economic agents can resort to article 27.

Although non-binding, at the end of 2014, 61 cases were processed. 48 cases were concluded,

of which two thirds in a favorable way to the agent who submitted the complaint.19

Article 27 of the LGUM

Article 27 was thought as a second step in the case the problem was not solved by the non-

binding mechanisms provided in articles 26 and 28. However, the economic agents resort

directly to this provision.20

Article 27 allows the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC) to file an administrative

appeal against an action, inaction, provision and, in general, any regulation with a lower rank

than a law that could be contrary to the liberties of establishment and movement in the

markets.

The CNMC can initiate this appeal ex officio or by petition of the economic agents. In the

latter case, the CNMC must assess the petition and inform the economic agent whether it is

appropriate to start the appeal.

If the CNMC appeals, it can request the suspension of provision denounced or any other

preventive measure. In this case the suspension it will be granted automatically.21

Other procedures

Before the LGUM the law provided and still provides another two mechanism to fight

barriers. First, the Law for the Defence of Competition provided in its article 13 that the

institutions in charge of competition policy in the regional governments could issue an appeal

against any provision or any regulation of a lesser rank to a law in their own regions and

municipalities as far as they go against the effective competition in their markets.

19 Informe Consejo para la Unidad de Mercado, 2015

20 Informe Consejo para la Unidad de Mercado, 2015

21 Article 127 quáter, Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa

11

Second, the Council of Ministers of the National Government may file a Constitutional

appeal against anything (including laws) before the Constitutional Court. These appeals may

include, of course, provisions that go against the LGUM.

However, those two last mechanism are not commonly used.

Mexico conditions

Constitutional principles related with the elimination of barriers to competition

The Constitution recognizes economic competition and free concurrence in the markets as

rights in its article 28. Moreover, article 117 explicitly prohibit the States to tax or forbid the

entry, transit or exit of any good. The same article also prohibit the States to issue or maintain

in force laws or regulations that discriminate on grounds of origin.

Moreover, the Constitution contains other principles and recognizes other rights related to a

single National market without barriers: National unity (article 2), free choice of employment

(5), freedom of movement inside the Republic (11) and the duty of the authorities to foster

competitiveness (25).

And last but not least, in article 28 the Constitution explicitly gives COFECE the faculty to

remove barriers to competition.

Commission’s autonomy and authority

Since the 2014 reform, Mexico has a fully autonomous competition authority. The

Constitution states that COFECE is an autonomous body with legal personality and with an

independent budget and assets.

Moreover, the Constitution provides that the COFECE will be composed by truly

independent and professional commissioners. They are pre-selected in a non-political process

that ensures its capability by testing their knowledge in economic competition. They must

not have hold in the years before its appointment political offices nor managerial positions

in companies investigated by the Commission. Their political independence is reinforced by

12

the facts that they cannot be removed,22 they cannot be reelected and their term in office last

for 9 years. All this reduces dramatically the political influence in its works.

In addition, the reform established specialized Courts in economic competition with the

power to review COFECE’s decisions.

Meanwhile, in Spain the Competition Authority has little independence from the National

Government. For that reason, several regional governments saw the LGUM as a tool to

eliminate their own autonomy and to centralize the regulation.

Another preoccupation is that the National Government is a politically motivated institution.

In that sense, it may have incentives to challenge only the regulations issued by governments

controlled by the opposition or, what is worse, it may not have incentives to challenge anti-

competitive regulations of some governments or even to use the threat to challenge as a

political weapon.

Thus, the institutional conditions in Mexico guarantee in a better way that COFECE (a truly

independent institution of the State, not a branch of the government) will act with

independence and taking less regard for political considerations.

In conclusion, Mexico has the necessary legal and institutional framework to establish a

similar reform as the Spanish’s LGUM and even to outperform that.

COFECE’s advocacy works

As in Spain, Mexico has non-binding mechanism for competition advocacy. As we saw, the

Mexican competition authority can issue non-binding opinions on any kind of regulation or

law (or even projects of regulations or laws) made by any level of government.

Since its creation in 2014, COFECE continued the work performed by the extinct CFC

issuing this specific opinions but also it started to develop sector-wide studies. In that regard,

22 Only if there is a serious reason, the Senate can initiate an impeachment trial and even in that case

two thirds of the votes in the Senate will be needed to remove a commissioner.

13

COFECE published in 2014 a comprehensive 960 pages study on the financial sector23 and

it is currently working on a similar study on the agri-food industry.24

Also, that COFECE has signed cooperation agreements with the Federal Regulatory

Improvement Commission, with the Federal Consumer Attorney, with the Social Security

Institute and with several institutions in order to promote a pro-competitive environment.

Reforming Mexico’s Law

Establish principles against barriers

Currently, the LFCE reaffirms some principles established in the Constitution. In that regard,

articles six, seven and eight of the Mexican competition law lay down who and what are

exempted from the law.

Meanwhile the Spanish LGUM establishes other principles. For instance:

Article 3 establish the non-discrimination principle: No economic agent can be

discriminated by its origin or place of establishment.

Article 16 principle of free economic initiative: The access to economic activities and

its exercise will be free across the country.

Related with the free economic initiative, articles 19 and 20 establish the principle of

effectiveness across the country: Any economic agent that is lawfully established in

any place inside Spain have the right to perform its economic activity across the

country without the need to comply with additional requirements. Any product

lawfully produced in any place inside Spain can move and be sold freely across the

23 Trabajo de Investigación y Recomendaciones sobre las Condiciones de Competencia en el Sector

Financiero y sus Mercados, 2014

http://www.cofece.mx/ingles/images/Estudios/ENTREGADEFINITIVO_PROTEG.pdf

24 http://www.cofece.mx/index.php/prensa/historico-de-noticias/estudio-sobre-la-competencia-y-

libre-concurrencia-en-el-sector-agroalimentario?tmpl=component&format=pdf

14

country. Licenses, permits and other regional requirements will be valid throughout

the country.

In the same vein, Mexico’s LFCE could introduce similar principles that reassert the

economic agents rights to entry and move freely inside the country and to being free from

discrimination on basis of their origin.

Establish a non-binding mechanism similar to the 26, 28 LGUM

COFECE’s advocacy work covers the entire country and different economic sectors.

However, no law provides mechanisms for an effective interaction between the competition

authority and other authorities. As it was stated before, COFECE has to develop several and

different cooperation agreements.

In Spain, the provisions contained in LGUM allow for a continuous communication between

the competition authority and other authorities that may issue anti-competitive regulations.

Moreover, articles 26 and 28 allow economic agents to complaint if they think their rights

were affected.

Thus, although COFECE’s would continue to perform its current work, a reform in the LFCE

should introduce a similar procedure as the one provided in articles 26 and 28 of the LGUM.

In addition, economic agents affected by some regulation should have the right to complaint

about it before COFECE. For its part, COFECE could initiate (in response of that complaint

or ex officio) a process of communication with the responsible authority in order to solve the

problem.

It could be a good idea also to allow the same procedure for regulations in an approval

process.

Establish judicial appeal mechanism similar to the 27

When the communication with the authority that issue an anti-competitive regulation does

not work, the LGUM provides another possible yet stronger solution. As we saw, article 27

allows the competition authority to initiate a judicial appeal against the any regulation of a

lesser rank to a law.

15

In Mexico, the LFCE should allow COFECE to do the same. In fact, COFECE’s political

independence and the existence of specialized courts in economic competition are good

reasons to think that such procedure would work better there.

Improve the power to make Constitutional challenges

As for anti-competitive laws, currently the LFCE allows to notify to the Federal Government

the existence of barriers in any law or regulation at the state and municipal level. Then the

Government will decide whether to initiate a constitutional challenge before the Supreme

Court or not.

Unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow the COFECE to initiate directly a

constitutional challenge against the States or municipalities. For that reason, a reform in this

specific provision could only aim at incentivize better the Federal Government to fulfill the

COFECE’s request.

However, the Constitution does allow COFECE to initiate a constitutional challenge on the

federal level against another autonomous body, against the Congress and against the Federal

Government. Currently, the LFCE restricts this challenge to matters regarding invasion of

competence.

It is possible to reform the LFCE to broad that power. The idea is to give explicit faculties to

the COFECE in order to challenge any Law at a federal level that results in barriers to

competition. Of course, a constitutional challenge should be considered an extreme measure.

Conclusion: Main elements of a reform

In conclusion, a set of recommendations in order to reform the LFCE can be done:

Reaffirm in the LFCE the agents’ right related with the constitutional principles to

competition and free participation in the markets.

Implement an effective communication mechanism between agents, competition

authority and other authorities to avoid anti-competitive regulations similar to those

in articles 26 and 28 of LGUM.

16

Give COFECE the power to appeal before Courts any anti-competitive regulations

and give economic agents the power to request that kind of appeal.

Reinforce the provisions related to Constitutional challenges in order to broad its

scope.

A project of a bill (in Spanish) that would implement this set of recommendations is included

in the document annexed. Such reform may have a huge impact in Mexico’s competition

policy.

It can shift the Commission’s focus and priorities. Currently, COFECE devotes most of its

resources and staff to investigate firms’ anti-competitive behavior because it can do little

against anti-competitive regulatory barriers. In other words, this reform may allow COFECE

to move from fight the consequences to remove the causes.

An effective use of those powers may have important positive effects. Small and medium

enterprises that cannot spend a lot of time or resources in compliance may expand across the

nation. This reform would result in a further integration of the market and a further

integration of the Nation.

17

REFERENCES

Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1917-2014, Mexico

Comisión Federal de Competencia, “Primer Informe Anual 1993-1994”, 1994, Mexico

Comisión Federal de Competencia, Informe Anual 2012, 2013, Mexico

Comisión Federal de Competencia, old webpage, http://189.206.114.203/index-

cfc.php?Itemid=1203, 2014, Mexico

Doing Business en México 2014, Doing Business Subnational, World Bank, 2014

Ley Federal de Competencia Económica, 2014, Mexico

Ley Federal de Competencia Económica (old versions), 1992-2011, Mexico

Ley 20/2013, de 9 de diciembre, de Garantía de la Unidad de Mercado, Boletín Oficial del

Estado, 2013, Spain

Ley 15/2007, de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia, Boletín Oficial del Estado,

2007, Spain

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, “Garantía de la Unidad de Mercado” webpage,

2015

http://www.mineco.gob.es/portal/site/mineco/menuitem.32ac44f94b634f76faf2b910026041

a0/?vgnextoid=831af90acb864410VgnVCM1000001d04140aRCRD

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Guía de uso para el procedimiento de

reclamación en defensa de los derechos e intereses de los operadores económicos. Ley

20/2013, de 9 de diciembre, de garantía de la unidad de mercado, artículo 26, 2014

http://www.mineco.gob.es/stfls/mineco/economia/ficheros/pdf/GUIA_26_PARA_EL_CIU

DADANOr.pdf

18

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Guía de uso para el procedimiento de

información de obstáculos o barreras a la unidad de mercado. Ley 20/2013, de 9 de

diciembre, de garantía de la unidad de mercado, artículo 28, 2014

http://www.mineco.gob.es/stfls/mineco/economia/ficheros/pdf/Guia_CIUDADANO_ART2

8.pdf

19

Annex (In Spanish):

Iniciativa con proyecto de decreto por el que reforma la Ley

Federal de Competencia Económica

ARTÍCULO ÚNICO. Se modifica el artículo 95 y se adicionan artículos 5 bis, 5 bis 1, 5 bis

2, 5 bis 3, 5 bis 4, 95 bis, 95 bis 1, 95 bis 2, 95 bis 3 a la Ley Federal de Competencia

Económica, para quedar como sigue:

Artículo 5 bis. El acceso a las actividades económicas y su ejercicio será libre en todo el

territorio nacional y sólo podrá limitarse conforme a lo establecido en esta Ley y lo dispuesto

en la Constitución.

Todos los agentes económicos tendrán los mismos derechos en todo el territorio nacional y

con respecto a todas las autoridades, sin discriminación alguna por razón del lugar de

residencia o establecimiento.

Ninguna disposición de carácter general, actuación administrativa o norma de calidad que se

refiera al acceso o al ejercicio de actividades económicas podrá contener condiciones ni

requisitos que tengan como efecto directo o indirecto la discriminación por razón de

establecimiento o residencia del agente económico

Artículo 5 bis 1. Desde el momento en que un agente económico esté legalmente establecido

en un lugar del territorio nacional podrá ejercer su actividad económica en todo el territorio,

mediante establecimiento físico o sin él, siempre que cumpla los requisitos de acceso a la

actividad del lugar de origen, incluso cuando la actividad económica no esté sometida a

requisitos en dicho lugar.

Cualquier producto o servicio legalmente producido conforme a las regulaciones de un lugar

del territorio nacional podrá circular y ofertarse libremente en el resto del territorio desde el

momento de su puesta en el mercado.

Cuando conforme a las regulaciones del lugar de destino se exijan requisitos, cualificaciones,

controles previos o garantías a los agentes económicos o a los bienes, distintos de los exigidos

20

u obtenidos al amparo de las regulaciones del lugar de origen, la autoridad de destino asumirá

la plena validez de estos últimos, aunque difieran en su alcance o cuantía. Asimismo, el libre

ejercicio operará incluso cuando en las regulaciones del lugar de origen no se exija requisito,

control, cualificación o garantía alguno.

Artículo 5 bis 2. Tendrán plena eficacia en todo el territorio nacional, sin necesidad de que

el agente económico realice ningún trámite adicional o cumpla nuevos requisitos, todos los

medios de intervención de las autoridades competentes que permitan el acceso a una

actividad económica o su ejercicio, o acrediten el cumplimiento de ciertas calidades,

cualificaciones o circunstancias. En particular, tendrán plena eficacia en todo el territorio

nacional sin que pueda exigirse al agente económico el cumplimiento de nuevos requisitos u

otros trámites adicionales:

I. Las autorizaciones, licencias, habilitaciones y cualificaciones profesionales obtenidas de

una autoridad competente para el acceso o el ejercicio de una actividad, para la producción

o la puesta en el mercado de un bien o servicio.

II. Las declaraciones responsables y comunicaciones presentadas ante una autoridad

competente para el acceso o el ejercicio de una actividad económica.

III. Las inscripciones en registros que sean necesarias para el acceso o ejercicio de una

actividad económica.

IV. Cualesquiera otros requisitos normativamente establecidos que permitan acceder a una

actividad económica o ejercerla.

Artículo 5 bis 3. Los organismos de evaluación, acreditación, certificación y otros similares

legalmente establecidos en cualquier lugar del territorio nacional, tendrán plena capacidad

para realizar sus funciones en todo el territorio nacional.

Los reconocimientos o acreditaciones, calificaciones o certificaciones de una autoridad

competente o de un organismo dependiente, reconocido o habilitado por ella, serán

21

plenamente válidos a todos los efectos en todo el territorio nacional, sin que pueda exigirse

la realización de ningún trámite adicional o el cumplimiento de nuevos requisitos.

Lo dispuesto en el presente artículo aplicará, en particular, a los siguientes supuestos:

I. Certificaciones de calidad a efectos de la acreditación del cumplimiento de las normas de

garantía de calidad en los procedimientos de contratación de las autoridades competentes,

para el suministro de bienes y servicios en determinadas circunstancias o a determinados

sujetos y para la obtención de ventajas económicas, bien sean subvenciones o beneficios

fiscales.

II. Certificaciones o reconocimientos oficiales, a efectos de los derechos o ventajas

económicas que obtienen las personas físicas o jurídicas que contratan con un agente

económico oficialmente reconocido.

III. Certificaciones, reconocimientos y acreditaciones, a efectos de comprobar la

concurrencia de un nivel determinado de calidad o de profesionalidad exigido para el acceso

o ejercicio de una actividad económica determinada.

Lo previsto en el presente artículo no se aplicará en caso de autorizaciones, declaraciones

responsables y comunicaciones vinculadas a una concreta instalación o infraestructura física.

No obstante, cuando el agente esté legalmente establecido en otro lugar del territorio, las

autorizaciones o declaraciones responsables no podrán contemplar requisitos que no estén

ligados específicamente a la instalación o infraestructura.

Lo previsto en el presente artículo tampoco se aplicará a los actos administrativos

relacionados con la ocupación de un determinado dominio público o cuando el número de

agentes económicos en un lugar del territorio sea limitado en función de la existencia de

servicios públicos sometidos a tarifas reguladas.

Artículo 5 bis 4. Las disposiciones jurídicas emitidas por cualquier orden de gobierno no

podrán contener disposiciones que indebidamente impidan o distorsionen el proceso de

competencia y libre concurrencia.

El particular, los Estados y municipios no podrán:

22

I. Gravar el tránsito de personas o cosas que atraviesen su territorio.

II. Prohibir ni gravar directa ni indirectamente la entrada a su territorio, ni la salida de

él, a ninguna mercancía nacional o extranjera.

III. Gravar la circulación ni el consumo de efectos nacionales o extranjeros, con

impuestos o derechos cuya exención se efectúe por aduanas locales, requiera inspección o

registro de bultos o exija documentación que acompañe la mercancía.

IV. Expedir ni mantener en vigor leyes o disposiciones fiscales que importen diferencias

de impuestos o requisitos por razón de la procedencia de mercancías nacionales o extranjeras,

ya sea que esta diferencia se establezca respecto de la producción similar de la localidad, o

ya entre producciones semejantes de distinta procedencia.

…

Artículo 95. Las resoluciones en las que la Comisión determine la existencia de barreras a la

competencia y libre concurrencia o de insumos esenciales, deberán ser notificadas a las

autoridades que regulen el sector del que se trate para que, en el ámbito de su competencia y

conforme a los procedimientos previstos por la legislación vigente, determinen lo conducente

para lograr condiciones de competencia.

Capítulo II: De los Recursos relativos a las Regulatorias Barreras a la Competencia

Artículo 95 bis. 1. Los agentes económicos y consumidores, así como sus representantes,

que entiendan que se han visto afectados por cualquier actividad, inactividad, acto o cualquier

disposición de carácter general emitida o en proceso de ser aprobada o emitida por cualquier

autoridad que suponga barreras injustificadas a la competencia podrán dirigir una

reclamación a la Comisión.

2. Se considerarán, como barreras injustificadas a la competencia aquellas que sean contrarias

a lo dispuesto, entre otros, en los artículos 28 y 117, fracciones IV, V, VI y VII de la

23

Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y, de manera particular, las previstas

en los artículos 5 bis 1, 5 bis 2, 5 bis 3 y 5 bis 4 de la presente Ley.

3. La Comisión revisará la reclamación para comprobar que se trata de una actuación que

pueda suponer una barrera injustificada a la competencia.

4. Si la Comisión considera que los hechos contenidos en la reclamación no suponen una

barrera a la competencia deberá desecharla en el plazo de 10 días a partir de que recibió la

reclamación. En este caso, la Comisión deberá publicar e informar al agente los motivos por

los cuáles desecha la reclamación.

5. Si la Comisión considera que lo hechos contenidos en la reclamación suponen una barrera

injustificada a la competencia deberá emitir una resolución dirigida a la autoridad

responsable que contenga motivos por los cuales considera que existe una barrera

injustificada a la competencia y donde se solicite a la autoridad responsable tomar medidas

al respecto. La Comisión tendrá un plazo de 15 días a partir de que recibió la reclamación

para hacer pública la resolución e informar al agente económico.

6. Transcurridos 20 días desde que recibió la información por parte de la Comisión, la

autoridad responsable publicará a e informará a la Comisión y al agente las medidas concretas

que se hayan adoptado para dar solución a la reclamación.

7. De no recibir respuesta en el citado plazo, la reclamación se entenderá desestimada por

parte de la autoridad responsable. Al día siguiente, la Comisión publicará e informará al

agente de que su reclamación fue desestimada.

8. Si el reclamante, a la vista de la decisión de la autoridad responsable, no se considera

satisfecha, podrá iniciar el procedimiento establecido en el artículo siguiente.

9. El procedimiento previsto en el presente artículo es de carácter alternativo. El agente

económico podrá interponer, de manera adicional y en todo momento, los recursos que

procedan contra la actividad, inactividad, acto o disposición de que se trate.

Artículo 95 bis 1. 1. La Comisión está facultada para interponer ante los Tribunales

especializados en materia de competencia económica un recurso frente a cualquier actividad,

24

inactividad, acto o cualquier disposición de carácter general que suponga barreras

injustificadas a la competencia en los términos señalados en la fracción 2 del artículo 95 bis.

2. La Comisión podrá actuar de oficio o mediante petición de los agentes económicos que se

consideren afectados.

3. Presentada la petición, la Comisión valorará en el plazo de 15 días si procede la

interposición de recurso, informando al agente de su decisión.

4. La Comisión podrá solicitar en su escrito de interposición la suspensión del acto o

disposición impugnados, así como cualquier otra medida cautelar.

5. Solicitada la suspensión del acto o disposición impugnados, la misma se producirá de

forma automática, una vez admitido el recurso. La autoridad responsable cuya actuación se

haya recurrido podrá solicitar en el plazo de tres meses el levantamiento de la suspensión,

siempre que acredite que de su mantenimiento pudiera seguirse una perturbación grave de

los intereses generales o de terceros que el tribunal ponderará.

Formulada la solicitud de levantamiento de la suspensión se dará traslado de la misma a la

Comisión para que, en el plazo de 10 días, realice los alegatos que considere oportunos.

Evacuado el anterior trámite, el tribunal resolverá lo que estime procedente en los 5 días

siguientes.

6. La Comisión publicará la información relativa a los recursos interpuestos y las peticiones

recibidas.

Artículo 95 bis 2. En el caso de que la Comisión tenga conocimiento de actos o disposiciones

generales de algún órgano constitucional autónomo, del Congreso de la Unión, o del

Ejecutivo Federal, que vulneren el ejercicio de sus atribuciones o que puedan resultar

contrarios a lo dispuesto, entre otros, por los artículos 28 y 117, fracciones IV, V, VI y

VII de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, podrá interponer una

controversia constitucional en términos de lo previsto por el inciso l), de la fracción I, del

artículo 105 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

25

Artículo 95 bis 3. Cuando la Comisión tenga conocimiento de actos o normas generales

emitidas por un Estado, el Distrito Federal, un Municipio, que puedan resultar contrarios a

lo dispuesto, entre otros, por los artículos 28 y 117, fracciones IV, V, VI y VII de la

Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos o que invadan facultades de la

Federación, lo hará del conocimiento del Titular del Ejecutivo Federal, por conducto de su

Consejero Jurídico, para que aquél, de considerarlo pertinente, inicie una controversia

constitucional en un plazo de 20 días, o del órgano competente para que éste, de considerarlo

procedente, interponga una acción de inconstitucionalidad en un plazo de 20 días.

La Comisión expresará los motivos por los cuales considera que los actos o normas generales

mencionados en el párrafo anterior contravienen los citados preceptos constitucionales.

En caso de que el Titular del Ejecutivo Federal no considere pertinente iniciar una

controversia constitucional, su Consejero Jurídico, deberá publicar en un plazo de 15 días

los motivos de su decisión.

TRANSITORIOS

Primero. El presente Decreto entrará en vigor al día siguiente al de su publicación en el

Diario Oficial de la Federación.

Segundo. El Pleno de la Comisión deberá adecuar su Estatuto Orgánico y demás

disposiciones regulatorias a lo dispuesto en el presente Decreto en un plazo que no excederá

de treinta días contados a partir de su entrada en vigor. En tanto se efectúe la adecuación, se

continuará aplicando el Estatuto Orgánico y demás disposiciones regulatorias vigentes al

momento de la entrada en vigor del presente Decreto, en lo que no se oponga a éste.

Tercero. La Cámara de Diputados garantizará la suficiencia presupuestal a fin de permitir a

la Comisión el ejercicio eficaz y oportuno de las atribuciones dispuestas en el presente

decreto.

Cuarto. Con el fin de desarrollar las competencias dispuestas en el presente decreto, la

Comisión formará una unidad administrativa de combate a las barreras regulatorias a la

competencia.