Judicial Setback for Dominga Mining Project: Antofagasta Court Overturns Environmental Tribunal Ruling

Judicial Setback for Dominga Mining Project

The Second Chamber of the Appeals Court, comprised of judges Dinko Franulic Cetinic, Eric Sepúlveda Casanova, and Jaime Rojas Mundaca, ruled that the decision made by the First Environmental Tribunal in February 2025 was not relevant under the law.

The Antofagasta Appeals Court annulled, on its own accord, the resolution established by the First Environmental Tribunal in an incidental compliance procedure, deeming its application inappropriate.

In a unanimous ruling (case number 2-2025), the Second Chamber of the Appeals Court determined that the decision made by the First Environmental Tribunal in February 2025 did not correspond to a legally defined case.
«According to articles 174 and 175 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), enforceable are the definitive and firm interlocutory judgments that declare a right in favor of the party invoking it, a requirement lacking in the judgment sought to be executed, as resolved by the Supreme Court in these proceedings,» the ruling states.

«Thus, it is evident that the execution procedure was applied to a case not provided for by law, which causes a procedural defect that must be corrected using this court’s corrective powers as outlined in articles 83 and subsequent of the Civil Procedure Code,» it adds.

The ruling further mentions: «(…) according to the resolution from the Supreme Court referred to, the judgment that serves as the executive title in these proceedings did not establish any rights in favor of any of the parties involved, nor did it render a decision regarding the qualification of the project, in its own terms, the jurisdictional act did not confirm or revoke what the Committee of Ministers decided, but annulled that decision, ordering a new ruling from the challenged body, which means it did not resolve the matter at issue in the trial, nor did it conclude the instance, as it ordered the continuation of the proceedings».

For the Appeals Court, «(…) to expect that an Appeals Court, within the framework of an appeal regarding compliance with the determined resolution, pronounces on essential issues of the environmental evaluation process, specifically, the limits and competencies of the authorities called to intervene in this, among others that impact this process, is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the law, demonstrating the impropriety of applying this judgment enforcement procedure to the ruling issued by the environmental tribunal.»

«For these reasons and also in view of the provisions in articles 83 and subsequent of the Civil Procedure Code, on its own accord, ALL actions taken in the incidental compliance procedure in case number R-95-2023 of the First Environmental Tribunal of Antofagasta are ANNULLED, and in its place, it is declared that given the legal nature of the resolution under appeal, its application is inappropriate,» it concludes.