La suspensión del procedimiento administrativo sancionador seguido en Ositran ante la existencia de un proceso arbitral previo
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
En el marco jurídico peruano, los procedimientos administrativos sancionadores
realizados por organismos reguladores, como Ositran, son esenciales para garantizar el
cumplimiento de las normativas aplicables a los contratos de concesión de servicios
públicos. Estos procedimientos buscan asegurar que las empresas concesionarias respeten
sus obligaciones y las leyes pertinentes.
Uno de los aspectos más relevantes en este contexto es la posibilidad de que un
procedimiento administrativo sancionador se vea afectado por la existencia de un proceso
arbitral previo relacionado con los mismos hechos. La cuestión central es si el
procedimiento administrativo debe suspenderse hasta que se resuelva el arbitraje.
El arbitraje, como mecanismo independiente de resolución de conflictos, tiene como
función dirimir las controversias entre las partes. Por otro lado, el procedimiento
administrativo sancionador continúa siendo crucial para que el regulador supervise el
cumplimiento de la ley y las condiciones del contrato de concesión. En este sentido, la
ley y la práctica administrativa deben establecer si la existencia de un arbitraje previo
justifica la suspensión del procedimiento sancionador.
Este trabajo tiene como propósito analizar la incidencia de un proceso arbitral previo en
la continuación o suspensión del procedimiento administrativo sancionador en el ámbito
de Ositran. Se investigará cómo la legislación y las prácticas regulatorias permiten
equilibrar las competencias del arbitraje y la función sancionadora del regulador,
garantizando el respeto a los derechos de las partes involucradas
In the Peruvian legal framework, administrative sanctioning procedures carried out by regulatory bodies, such as Ositran, are essential to ensure compliance with the regulations applicable to public service concession contracts. These procedures seek to ensure that concessionaires respect their obligations and the relevant laws. One of the most relevant aspects in this context is the possibility that an administrative sanctioning procedure may be affected by the existence of a previous arbitration process related to the same facts. The central question is whether the administrative procedure should be suspended until the arbitration is resolved. Arbitration, as an independent dispute resolution mechanism, has the function of settling disputes between the parties. On the other hand, the administrative sanctioning procedure remains crucial for the regulator to monitor compliance with the law and the terms of the concession contract. In this sense, the law and administrative practice should establish whether the existence of a prior arbitration justifies the suspension of the sanctioning procedure. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the incidence of a previous arbitration process in the continuation or suspension of the administrative sanctioning procedure in the scope of Ositran. It will investigate how legislation and regulatory practices allow balancing the powers of arbitration and the sanctioning function of the regulator, guaranteeing respect for the rights of the parties involved.
In the Peruvian legal framework, administrative sanctioning procedures carried out by regulatory bodies, such as Ositran, are essential to ensure compliance with the regulations applicable to public service concession contracts. These procedures seek to ensure that concessionaires respect their obligations and the relevant laws. One of the most relevant aspects in this context is the possibility that an administrative sanctioning procedure may be affected by the existence of a previous arbitration process related to the same facts. The central question is whether the administrative procedure should be suspended until the arbitration is resolved. Arbitration, as an independent dispute resolution mechanism, has the function of settling disputes between the parties. On the other hand, the administrative sanctioning procedure remains crucial for the regulator to monitor compliance with the law and the terms of the concession contract. In this sense, the law and administrative practice should establish whether the existence of a prior arbitration justifies the suspension of the sanctioning procedure. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the incidence of a previous arbitration process in the continuation or suspension of the administrative sanctioning procedure in the scope of Ositran. It will investigate how legislation and regulatory practices allow balancing the powers of arbitration and the sanctioning function of the regulator, guaranteeing respect for the rights of the parties involved.
Description
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess