## Facts

- Samuel Kot, L.L.C. owned and operated a textile plant in the Buenos Aires area and entered into a labor conflict with its employees, including union delegates such as Aron Fistein.
- During the dispute, workers took control of the plant as a form of protest and blocked access to management personnel, including managers, foremen, and administrative staff.
- The occupation stopped the plant’s operations and prevented the company from carrying on its ordinary industrial activity from the premises.
- A manager for Samuel Kot filed a criminal complaint for usurpation of property and sought police action to regain possession and restore access.
- The criminal court dismissed the accusation, treating the incident as part of a collective labor dispute rather than a criminally punishable dispossession, and the company did not obtain prompt restoration of control through that route.
- Relying on the Argentina Supreme Court’s then-recent recognition of a judicial protection remedy in *Siri v. Police Commissioner*, Samuel Kot filed a petition seeking immediate judicial relief to end the occupation.
- Samuel Kot argued that the workers’ conduct violated constitutional guarantees, including the right to property, the right to work, and the freedom to engage in lawful economic activity.
- The lower court rejected the petition, reasoning that habeas corpus protects only personal physical liberty and could not be used to address interference with property or business activity.
- Samuel Kot pursued further review, bringing the matter before the Argentina Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an amparo-type judicial remedy is available to stop a clear and ongoing violation of constitutional rights when the conduct is committed by private individuals rather than public authorities.
2. Whether workers’ occupation of a factory—barring management and halting operations—constitutes an unlawful interference with the owner’s constitutional rights to property and to carry on lawful work or industry.
3. Whether the existence of other possible remedies (such as criminal, labor, or civil actions) defeats amparo when those avenues do not provide timely and effective relief against an ongoing deprivation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and granted relief ordering the occupation to end and the company’s access and use of the plant to be restored.
- The Court held that judicial protection for constitutional rights is not limited to cases involving state action; in certain circumstances, courts may grant amparo against private conduct.
- The Court found the occupation and exclusion of management to be an ongoing, direct interference with Samuel Kot’s constitutionally protected interests, including property and the ability to conduct lawful work or business.
- The Court rejected the idea that amparo is categorically barred whenever some ordinary action exists in theory, holding instead that immediate relief is proper when ordinary procedures are not adequate to stop a present and serious deprivation.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may grant amparo (a judicial protection remedy) to stop a current, manifest, and serious violation of constitutional rights, even where the interference is caused by private persons.
- Constitutional guarantees protecting property and lawful work/activity are not merely declaratory; courts must provide effective protection when those guarantees are being practically nullified by ongoing conduct.
- Amparo is exceptional and does not replace ordinary proceedings, but it is available when other legal routes are not suitable to provide prompt and effective protection against a present deprivation.
- A private occupation that excludes the owner’s representatives and halts operations can amount to an unlawful interference with constitutionally protected property and economic liberty, justifying immediate judicial intervention.

## Conclusion

In *Samuel Kot, L.L.C. v. Aron Fistein, et al.*, the Argentina Supreme Court extended amparo beyond state action and granted immediate relief against a worker-led factory occupation, holding that courts must provide effective, timely protection of constitutional rights—such as property and the freedom to work—when private conduct causes a present and clear deprivation and ordinary remedies do not provide a workable response.


Samuel Kot, L.L.C. v. Aron Fistein, et al., 241 F.C.S. 291 (1958)