¿Las medidas correctivas impuestas en el marco de la actividad de fiscalización y en un procedimiento administrativo sancionador pueden constituir barreras burocráticas?
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 artículo busca abordar una problemática que viene suscitándose en
las resoluciones emitidas por la Comisión y Sala de Eliminación de Barreras
Burocráticas, en primera y segunda instancia respectivamente.
Dicha problemática consiste en determinar si las medidas correctivas impuestas
en el marco de la actividad de fiscalización y en el marco de un procedimiento
administrativo sancionador pueden constituir barreras burocráticas debido a que
generan los efectos propios de una barrera. Es decir, condicionan, restringen u
obstaculizan el acceso y/o permanencia de los agentes económicos en el
mercado.
Ambos marcos (fiscalización y procedimiento sancionador) merecen especial
atención debido a que, en principio, la actividad de fiscalización por su propia
naturaleza que implica que la administración corrobore el cumplimiento de las
obligaciones legales asumidas por los administrados en virtud de títulos
habilitantes y tiene una finalidad preventiva, no debería generar ese tipo de
consecuencias. Sin embargo, no siempre sucede así.
Por otro lado, en cuanto al sancionador, tenemos que la imposición de sanciones
se encuentra excluida de las competencias de la CEB/SEL por el literal j) del
numeral 3 del artículo 3 del Decreto Legislativo N| 1256. No obstante,
consideramos que existen elementos que permitirían realizar un análisis sobre
un posible eventual pronunciamiento por parte de la autoridad.
Por ello, el análisis se servirá de 3 Resoluciones emitidas por la CEB/SEL a
efectos de analizar el razonamiento que llevó a la autoridad a declarar la
improcedencia de las denuncias y poder brindar una respuesta a la problemática
planteada.
This article aims to address a problem that has been arising in the resolutions issued by the Commission and the Bureaucratic Barrier Elimination Chamber (CEB/SEL), in the first and second instances, respectively. The problem at hand is determining whether corrective measures imposed within the framework of oversight activities and within the framework of an administrative sanctioning procedure can constitute bureaucratic barriers, as they generate the effects typical of such barriers. That is, they condition, restrict, or hinder the access and/or permanence of economic agents in the market. Both frameworks (oversight and sanctioning procedures) deserve special attention because, in principle, the oversight activity—by its very nature, which involves the administration verifying the compliance with legal obligations assumed by the regulated parties under enabling titles and has a preventive purpose—should not generate these kinds of consequences. However, this is not always the case. On the other hand, regarding the sanctioning process, we must note that the imposition of sanctions is excluded from the competencies of the CEB/SEL according to item j) of paragraph 3 of Article 3 of Legislative Decree No. 1256. However, we believe that there are elements that would allow for an analysis of a possible eventual ruling by the authority. Therefore, the analysis will draw upon 3 resolutions issued by the CEB/SEL to examine the reasoning that led the authority to declare the complaints inadmissible and to provide a response to the issue raised.
This article aims to address a problem that has been arising in the resolutions issued by the Commission and the Bureaucratic Barrier Elimination Chamber (CEB/SEL), in the first and second instances, respectively. The problem at hand is determining whether corrective measures imposed within the framework of oversight activities and within the framework of an administrative sanctioning procedure can constitute bureaucratic barriers, as they generate the effects typical of such barriers. That is, they condition, restrict, or hinder the access and/or permanence of economic agents in the market. Both frameworks (oversight and sanctioning procedures) deserve special attention because, in principle, the oversight activity—by its very nature, which involves the administration verifying the compliance with legal obligations assumed by the regulated parties under enabling titles and has a preventive purpose—should not generate these kinds of consequences. However, this is not always the case. On the other hand, regarding the sanctioning process, we must note that the imposition of sanctions is excluded from the competencies of the CEB/SEL according to item j) of paragraph 3 of Article 3 of Legislative Decree No. 1256. However, we believe that there are elements that would allow for an analysis of a possible eventual ruling by the authority. Therefore, the analysis will draw upon 3 resolutions issued by the CEB/SEL to examine the reasoning that led the authority to declare the complaints inadmissible and to provide a response to the issue raised.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Derecho administrativo--Legislación--Perú, Procedimiento administrativo--Legislación--Perú, Sanciones administrativas
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
