Which Court Do You Sue the ANM In? What Changed With Law 2080 of 2021

Until January 2021, if you wanted to sue a resolution issued by Colombia's National Mining Agency (ANM), it made no difference whether the case involved the forfeiture of a multimillion-dollar coal concession or a minor fine against a small-scale gold panner in Bajo Cauca: the case went to the Council of State, in Bogotá, as a single-instance proceeding. Article 295 of the Mining Code (Law 685 of 2001) required it. That special jurisdiction no longer exists. And the change reorganized, from the ground up, where a mining-related administrative act is litigated in Colombia today.
Why that special jurisdiction existed, and why it stopped working

The original idea was not unreasonable: centralizing mining litigation in the highest administrative court to unify criteria in a sector sensitive to public finances and foreign investment. In practice, the design made no distinction based on the amount in dispute or the complexity of the case. The Council of State ended up handling, on the same docket, the forfeiture of a large-scale gold project and the rejection of a concession proposal from a small traditional miner.

The result was predictable: congestion at the top of the jurisdiction and, for a miner in Quibdó, Cúcuta, or southern Bolívar, the obligation to litigate in Bogotá even when the value of the claim did not cover the cost of travel and legal representation. On top of that, because it was a single-instance proceeding, there was no possibility of appeal. The 2011 CPACA (Administrative Procedure and Administrative Litigation Code) did not solve the underlying problem, because the special jurisdiction rule in the Mining Code kept applying under the principle of legal specialty.
The reform: Article 295 was repealed

Article 87 of Law 2080 of 2021 expressly repealed Article 295 of Law 685 of 2001. With that, the special "attraction" jurisdiction for mining matters disappeared. Since the new competence rules took effect, any claim against an act issued by the ANM, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, or a delegated authority is governed by the ordinary CPACA rules: what matters is the type of judicial action being exercised — and, within it, the mining or oil-and-gas nature of the matter remains decisive for determining which court hears the case in first instance. It simply no longer sends the case automatically to Bogotá in a single instance; instead, it goes to a regional tribunal, with a real possibility of appeal.

Article 24 of the same law, which amended Article 149 of the CPACA, also narrowed the cases in which the Council of State retains single-instance jurisdiction. It is no longer the default entry point.

Article 28 of Law 2080 of 2021, in turn, amended Article 152 of the CPACA and assigned to the administrative tribunals, in first instance, jurisdiction over "matters raised concerning oil or mining affairs in which the Nation or a territorial or service-decentralized entity is a party" (item 24). This is jurisdiction based on subject matter, not on the amount in dispute — and, as will be seen, it ends up governing the vast majority of mining litigation.
How the competent court is determined today

Everything starts by identifying the type of judicial action (medio de control). From there, each one follows its own rule.

Simple nullity action (Art. 137 CPACA), against general acts. This applies to resolutions that delimit strategic reserve areas, set terms of reference for environmental impact studies, or regulate small-scale gold panning (barequeo) nationwide. Here the amount in dispute is irrelevant; what matters is which authority issued the act: if it is a national authority (ANM, the Ministry), the Council of State hears the case in a single instance (Art. 149.1 CPACA); if it is a departmental authority, such as a governor's office Mining Secretariat, the Administrative Tribunals hear the case in first instance (Art. 152.1 CPACA).

Action for annulment and restoration of rights (Art. 138 CPACA), against individual acts. This is the route for the rejection of a concession proposal, the refusal to register a title in the National Mining Registry, a fine for violating the safety regulations, or the cancellation of an exploration license. Here it is not the amount in dispute that governs, but the subject matter. Article 152.24 of the CPACA gives the Administrative Tribunal first-instance jurisdiction over any mining or oil-and-gas matter in which the Nation or a territorial or service-decentralized entity is a party, without conditioning it on the value of the claim. Since the ANM is a national-level entity and delegated governors' offices are territorial entities, that special rule covers practically all mining litigation brought through this route. Article 155 of the CPACA, which sets the jurisdiction of the administrative judges, does not even list mining or oil-and-gas matters among its items: they were reserved for the tribunal from the first instance onward, with appeal to the Council of State.

Situation First instance Second instance
Mining or oil-and-gas matter in which the Nation, a department, or a decentralized entity is a party (the general rule for cases against the ANM) Administrative Tribunal, regardless of the amount in dispute (Art. 152.24 CPACA) Council of State

The most common case in mining practice is precisely that of an applicant whose exploration request the ANM rejects due to overlap with a reserve area, where there is not yet a quantified deposit or a consolidated economic loss. That kind of case, which previously would have gone straight to Bogotá under the attraction jurisdiction of (now repealed) Article 295, still does not end up before a lower court: because it is a mining matter in which the ANM is a party, first instance belongs to the Administrative Tribunal of the claimant's domicile (Arts. 152.24 and 156.2 CPACA), with appeal to the Council of State. What changed was not the level of the court, but its location: it moved from Bogotá to the regional tribunal.

Contractual disputes (Art. 141 CPACA), concerning the concession contract. The mining concession contract (Art. 45, Law 685 of 2001) is a state contract, so its validity, performance, or termination, and any declaration of forfeiture for breach, are litigated through this route. The same subject-matter special rule applies here: because the ANM (or the delegated governor's office) is a party to the concession contract, first instance belongs to the Administrative Tribunal of the place where the contract is performed (Arts. 152.24 and 156.3 CPACA), and the amount in dispute does not displace that jurisdiction.

It is worth keeping in mind the doctrine of separable acts: whatever happens before the contract is signed and registered (rejection of the proposal, registration) is challenged through an annulment and restoration-of-rights action; whatever happens afterward, already during performance, is a contractual dispute.
The territorial factor also changed

With the centralized jurisdiction gone, the claimant's domicile and the place of performance of the contract now genuinely matter.

In annulment and restoration-of-rights actions, the rule is the claimant's domicile, provided the defendant entity has an office there (Art. 156.2 CPACA). The ANM has Regional Service Points in cities such as Bucaramanga, Medellín, Cúcuta, Cali, Pasto, and Quibdó, and those points count as an office for this purpose. A mining titleholder in Bucaramanga who sues over an ANM sanction no longer litigates in Bogotá: the case goes to the Administrative Tribunal of Santander, in first instance, because it is a mining matter in which the ANM is a party (Art. 152.24 CPACA), and the amount of the sanction does not change that jurisdiction.

In contractual disputes, the governing factor is the place where the contract is performed (Art. 156.3 CPACA), which in mining corresponds to the concession's polygon. If the title covers land in Tarazá, Antioquia, that is where the case is litigated, even if the ANM issued the act from Bogotá.

One point that generates debate: when the Antioquia Governor's Office acts under delegation from the ANM (delegation provided for in Art. 320 of Law 685 of 2001), the act is substantively national in origin, but for purposes of filing the case, the prevailing case law looks at who actually signed it. If the departmental Mining Secretariat signed it, the case is filed in the Judicial District of Antioquia.
When mining collides with environmental law

A significant share of current litigation does not originate with the ANM at all, but with environmental acts that block mining activity: páramo (high-altitude wetland) delimitations, integrated management districts, and zones designated as compatible or incompatible with mining set by the Ministry of Environment or by the Regional Autonomous Corporations (CAR). If the general act of the environmental authority is what is being challenged, the same simple-nullity rules apply (Council of State if it is the Ministry of Environment, the Tribunal if it is a CAR). If the goal is instead to protect a vested right against the effects of that restriction in a specific case, the amount in dispute comes into play, just as in any annulment and restoration-of-rights action.
Transitional regime

Article 86 of Law 2080 of 2021 kept in the Council of State the cases that were already admitted or in progress under the repealed Article 295, applying the principle of perpetuation of jurisdiction. The rules that modify the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, and the Council of State — including the repeal of Article 295 and the new rules under Articles 149, 152, and 155 of the CPACA — did not take effect immediately: Article 86 itself deferred their application to claims filed one year after the publication of Law 2080 of 2021 (January 25, 2021), that is, from January 26, 2022 onward.

Limitation-period alert. As with any judicial action before the administrative litigation jurisdiction, the deadline to file suit keeps running and is not suspended while you analyze which court to file with. Article 164 of the CPACA sets different deadlines depending on the type of action: four months for an annulment and restoration-of-rights action, counted from notice or notification of the act, and up to two years for contractual disputes, depending on the specific triggering event. Before deciding on a strategy, it is essential to calculate that deadline against the specific act at hand.
In summary

The repeal of Article 295 of the Mining Code brought mining litigation closer to the territory, but it did not remove it entirely from a special jurisdiction: determining whether a matter is a mining matter is still the first step, because that determines whether the subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 152.24 of the CPACA is triggered — a rule that sends almost all litigation against the ANM to the Administrative Tribunal from the first instance, regardless of the amount in dispute. What fundamentally changed is the level and the venue: there is no longer a single instance in Bogotá, but a regional first instance with a real appeal to the Council of State. For the sector, that means two-instance proceedings and courts closer to where the project is located, although — except for the narrow exceptions where no state mining entity is involved — the amount in dispute stops being the decisive factor that this analysis must calculate case by case.