Principle of proportionality in administrative sanctions: how to use it in your defense
When an administrative authority imposes a multimillion-dollar fine, a multi-year disqualification, or a suspension of activities on your company, the natural reaction is to debate whether or not you committed the intellectual infraction.
But there is a second line of defense that many companies ignore and that often proves decisive: even if the infraction took place, the sanction may be illegal due to being disproportionate.
The principle of proportionality is a constitutional guarantee that requires the authority to graduate each sanction according to the actual gravity of the conduct and the circumstances of the offender. When it fails to do so —which is often the case— the sanctioning resolution can be challenged and annulled.
Understanding how this principle works and how to invoke it can completely transform your defense strategy.
What is the principle of proportionality in administrative sanctions?
The principle of proportionality requires that there be a reasonable correspondence between the gravity of the committed infraction and the severity of the imposed sanction. In other words: the authority cannot sanction any conduct with the maximum penalty, but must tailor the punishment to the specific characteristics of the case.
Its constitutional basis is found in Article 22 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which prohibits excessive fines, and in Article 16, which requires proper legal foundation and motivation for all authoritative acts.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held that the principles of criminal law are applicable to administrative sanctioning law, since both are manifestations of the State's ius puniendi —the punitive power. Consequently, any administrative sanction (fine, closure, disqualification, suspension, warning) must be proportional to comply with constitutional standards.
When is a fine considered excessive or disproportionate?
The Supreme Court has developed, since amparo under review 2071/93 and subsequent criteria, a definition of an excessive fine. A pecuniary sanction is excessive when:
It exceeds the limit of what is ordinary and reasonable.
It is disproportionate to the gravity of the offense, either because of its consequences or the conditions under which it was committed.
It proves disproportionate to the amount of the business or operation involved.
It does not correspond to the economic capacity of the offender.
From this criterion emerges a central idea: the exact same fine can be excessive for some, moderate for others, and mild for many.
That is why the Court declared fixed fines unconstitutional —those applied equally to everyone without considering individual circumstances— because in not allowing graduation, they facilitate authoritarian excesses and disproportionate treatment of individuals.
What criteria must the authority weigh when graduating a sanction?
When the norm establishes a range between a minimum and a maximum, the authority does not have absolute freedom to choose the amount: it must individualize the sanction, justifying its decision based on objective criteria.
Jurisprudence has identified the factors that the authority is obliged to weigh:
Graduation Criterion | What the authority must evaluate |
Gravity of the infraction | The scale of the damage caused and the impact on the protected legal asset. |
Economic capacity of the offender | The real possibilities of payment and the size of the business. |
Intentionality | Whether the conduct was willful, negligent, or the result of an involuntary error. |
Damage caused | The specific harm caused to the public interest or to third parties. |
Recidivism | Whether the offender had already been sanctioned before for similar conduct. |
Circumstances of execution | The objective and subjective context in which the infraction was committed. |
The key to the defense lies in a legal principle repeatedly upheld by the courts: the imposition of a sanction more severe than the minimum provided must be clearly motivated, detailing the specific reasons that justify the heavier punishment.
If the authority imposes a sanction above the minimum without explaining why, it incurs a lack of reinforced motivation, and its resolution is voidable.
How is the principle of proportionality used in defending a company?
The principle of proportionality operates as a judicial control mechanism over the administration's sanctioning power. In defense practice, it can be invoked on several fronts:
Challenging the lack of motivation in graduation. If the resolution does not explain why a certain amount within the legal range was chosen, a violation of Article 16 of the Constitution is argued, and nullity is requested.
Proving disproportion relative to economic capacity. By providing financial statements and accounting documentation that demonstrate the sanction reasonably exceeds the offender's possibilities.
Demonstrating the absence of intent or damage. When the conduct was an involuntary error or did not cause specific harm, it is argued that the imposed sanction does not correspond to the actual gravity.
Pointing out the improper individualization of the infraction. Every sanctioning resolution must precisely identify the conduct, the specific precept violated, and quantify the sanction using objective criteria; the absence of any of these elements leads to nullity.
A relevant technical aspect: when the principles of sanctioning law are violated, it is appropriate to declare the nullity of what was done, without late motivation of the graduation being valid.
This means that the authority cannot "correct" later on the reasons it omitted at the time of sanctioning.
Therefore, a rigorous technical analysis of the resolution, ideally with support from a lawyer specialized in administrative sanctioning law, allows for detecting the motivational defects that open the door to nullity.
Before which authority is a disproportionate sanction challenged?
The route to challenge disproportion depends on the type of act and the authority that issued it, but the most common routes are:
Administrative appeal before the authority itself or its hierarchical superior, as provided by the specific law on the matter.
Contentious administrative trial (nullity lawsuit) before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA), which has the powers to declare the outright nullity of poorly motivated sanctioning resolutions.
Amparo trial, when the sanction violates fundamental rights such as the prohibition of excessive fines in Article 22 of the Constitution.
The choice of path is a strategic decision. Analyzing which is more convenient —considering deadlines, probability of success, and the possibility of suspending the act— is an essential part of the defense.
Understanding the differences between a revocation appeal and a contentious lawsuit is key to avoiding lost time and procedural opportunities.
To which types of sanctions does the principle of proportionality apply?
The principle is not limited to fines. As a guarantee derived from the state's ius puniendi, it reaches all administrative sanctions:
Fines imposed by tax, sanitary, environmental, or economic competition authorities.
Temporary or permanent closures of establishments.
Disqualifications from participating in public procurement.
Suspensions of activities or permits.
Warnings and admonishments.
This is especially relevant for companies facing sanctions under the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities, where the consequences can lead to the dissolution of the corporation.
In those cases, when a company is charged with a serious administrative fault susceptible to sanction before the ASF or the SFP, proportionality becomes a central argument to challenge sanctions that turn out to be excessive compared to the conduct actually proven.
Proportionality: the guarantee that turns an unfair sanction into an illegal sanction
The principle of proportionality is one of the most underestimated defense tools in Mexican administrative law.
Many companies focus all their energy on arguing whether or not they committed the infraction, and neglect the second battle: that of the sanction itself. However, even if the infraction exists, a sanction imposed without proper individualization, without considering the economic capacity of the offender, or without motivating why an amount higher than the minimum was chosen, is an illegal sanction.
Proportionality is not an abstract technicality: it is a constitutional guarantee with solid jurisprudential support that forces the authority to justify every peso of a fine and every month of disqualification.
Detecting motivational defects in a sanctioning resolution, documenting the disproportion, and bringing the argument before the competent court can drastically reduce the impact of a sanction or annul it completely.
It is, in short, the difference between passively accepting the punishment the authority decided to impose and demanding that the punishment conform to what the Constitution allows.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim disproportion even if I did commit the infraction?
Yes, and that is precisely where the principle shows its full utility. Proportionality does not debate whether or not you committed the infraction, but rather whether the sanction imposed reasonably corresponds to that conduct.
Even while acknowledging the infraction, you can argue that the fine is excessive relative to your economic capacity, that the authority failed to justify why it chose an amount higher than the minimum, or that it failed to assess the absence of intent or damage. It is a line of defense independent of the existence of the infraction.
What documents do I need to prove that a fine is disproportionate?
The most relevant are those that prove your real economic capacity: financial statements, tax returns, balance sheets, and accounting documentation.
Also useful is any element that demonstrates the absence of intent, the non-existence of concrete damage, the absence of prior offenses, or mitigating circumstances in which the conduct was committed. The idea is to contrast the amount of the sanction with the economic reality of the business and the actual gravity of the infraction.
Are fixed fines legal in Mexico?
No. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held that fixed fines are contrary to Article 22 of the Constitution, because in being applied equally to all offenders without allowing graduation, they facilitate excesses and disproportionate treatment.
A regulation that establishes a single-amount fine, without a range between minimum and maximum, is susceptible to being challenged as unconstitutional. Sanctions must allow the authority to individualize the amount according to the circumstances of the case.
Can the authority correct the missing motivation later?
No. The courts have held that when the principle of proportionality is violated due to a lack of motivation in graduation, nullity applies, and a late justification is not valid.
In other words, the authority cannot subsequently remedy the reasons it omitted at the time of sanctioning. This is one of the strongest points of the defense: if the original resolution did not adequately justify the amount, that defect can no longer be repaired and results in annulment.
Does the principle of proportionality apply to disqualifications and closures, or only to fines?
It applies to all administrative sanctions, not just pecuniary ones. Since it derives from the State's ius puniendi, proportionality also governs closures, disqualifications, suspensions of activities, and warnings.
A ten-year disqualification imposed without explaining why a shorter period was not applied, or a permanent closure when a temporary one was sufficient, can be challenged as disproportionate in the same manner as an excessive fine.
Before which court is a disproportionate administrative sanction challenged?
Generally, before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice through a nullity lawsuit, which can declare the outright nullity of poorly motivated resolutions.
An amparo trial can also be utilized when the sanction directly violates constitutional guarantees, such as the prohibition of excessive fines. In some cases, an administrative appeal before the authority itself is required first. The proper avenue depends on the subject matter and the strategy, which is why it should be analyzed with specialized advice.
How much time do I have to challenge a sanction I consider disproportionate?
Deadlines vary depending on the country, route, and subject matter, but they are usually brief and non-extendable: commonly 30 business days for a revocation appeal or a nullity lawsuit, and 15 business days for amparo, counted from the day after the resolution is notified.
Allowing the deadline to pass means the sanction becomes final and enforceable, so it is essential to act immediately upon receiving the sanctioning resolution.
Recommended Blogs
Practice Areas
If you are looking for a reliable, efficient law firm with the capacity to protect your interests, contact us today for a consultation!