¿Infracción por discriminación en el consumo o trato preferente?: Reflexiones respecto de la Resolución N° 1121-2020/SPC-INDECOPI
Fecha
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Resumen
El presente Informe realiza un análisis respecto de la Resolución N° 1121-
2020/SPC-INDECOPI, en la que resultaron como proveedores denunciados
Crediscotia Financiera S.A., Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. e Importaciones Hiraoka
S.A.C.
El primer paso es realizar un breve marco teórico de los conceptos que se
mencionarán a lo largo del informe y que nos ayudarán en nuestro análisis,
especialmente cuando lleguemos a la identificación de la conducta infractora de
los proveedores responsables. Como segundo paso, corresponde identificar si
existió una relación entre los proveedores denunciados, una relación de
consumo entre dichos proveedores y el señor Rafael Rodrigo Delgado Carranza,
quien es el consumidor que denuncia a los proveedores, así como también
identificar si todos los proveedores denunciados correspondían ser responsables
ante una eventual infracción al Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor
(en adelante, “Código”). Finalmente, y como último paso, gracias a la aportación
del marco teórico, podremos evaluar si se cometió una infracción al artículo 41°
del Código, el cual versa sobre el trato preferente, o si fue una infracción a los
artículos 1°.1 literal d) y 38° del Código, ambos relacionados a la discriminación
en el consumo. La conclusión principal es que sí existió una infracción al Código
respecto de los artículos que prohíben la discriminación hacia los consumidores.
De esta forma, del análisis realizado podemos concluir que el único proveedor
responsable fue Crediscotia Financiera S.A. por la actuación de su personal.
This report analyzes Resolution No. 1121-2020/SPC-INDECOPI, in which Crediscotia Financiera S.A., Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. and Importaciones Hiraoka S.A.C. were alleged as suppliers. The first step is to make a brief theoretical framework of the concepts that will be mentioned throughout the report and that will help us in our analysis, especially when we come to the identification of the infringing conduct of the responsible suppliers. As a second step, it is necessary to identify whether there was a relationship between the denounced suppliers, a consumer relationship between said suppliers and Mr. Rafael Rodrigo Delgado Carranza, who is the consumer reporting the suppliers, as well as to identify whether all the alleged suppliers were responsible for an eventual infringement of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code (hereinafter, “Code”). Finally, and as a last step, thanks to the contribution of the theoretical framework, we will be able to evaluate whether a violation of article 41° of the Code, which deals with preferential treatment, was committed, or whether it was a violation of articles 1.1 paragraph d) and 38° of the Code, both related to discrimination in consumption. The main conclusion is that there was a violation of the Code with respect to the articles prohibiting discrimination against consumers. Thus, from the analysis carried out we can conclude that the only responsible supplier was Crediscotia Financiera S.A. due to the performance of its personnel.
This report analyzes Resolution No. 1121-2020/SPC-INDECOPI, in which Crediscotia Financiera S.A., Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. and Importaciones Hiraoka S.A.C. were alleged as suppliers. The first step is to make a brief theoretical framework of the concepts that will be mentioned throughout the report and that will help us in our analysis, especially when we come to the identification of the infringing conduct of the responsible suppliers. As a second step, it is necessary to identify whether there was a relationship between the denounced suppliers, a consumer relationship between said suppliers and Mr. Rafael Rodrigo Delgado Carranza, who is the consumer reporting the suppliers, as well as to identify whether all the alleged suppliers were responsible for an eventual infringement of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code (hereinafter, “Code”). Finally, and as a last step, thanks to the contribution of the theoretical framework, we will be able to evaluate whether a violation of article 41° of the Code, which deals with preferential treatment, was committed, or whether it was a violation of articles 1.1 paragraph d) and 38° of the Code, both related to discrimination in consumption. The main conclusion is that there was a violation of the Code with respect to the articles prohibiting discrimination against consumers. Thus, from the analysis carried out we can conclude that the only responsible supplier was Crediscotia Financiera S.A. due to the performance of its personnel.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Racismo--Legislación--Perú, Discriminación--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derechos fundamentales--Perú, Derecho a la igualdad--Legislación--Perú, Comportamiento del consumidor--Legislación--Perú