Discriminación en el consumo: ¿todo trato desigual implica un acto de discriminación?
Fecha
Autores
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
Mediante el presente trabajo se busca determinar si es que todo trato
diferenciado injustificado debería ser sancionado como una infracción al artículo
38° del Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor como un acto de
discriminación. Así, mediante el análisis realizado se ha advertido que el
ordenamiento jurídico peruano nunca definió de forma específica lo que se
habría entendido por la figura del trato diferenciado ilícito, lo que llevó a que el
Indecopi cree esta figura bajo sus criterios interpretativos y que, como
consecuencia, tenga problemas para sancionar dicha infracción bajo un
esquema normativo, así como problemas con la carga de la prueba. Por tal
motivo, el problema señalado habría tratado de ser cubierto por el Indecopi bajo
una interpretación amplia y errónea de la figura de la discriminación, siendo que
al tratarse de figuras distintas y no al no existir otra figura en el Código de
Protección y Defensa del Consumidor mediante la cual se puedan sancionar
como tal a los tratos diferenciados ilícitos, se propone incluir en dicho dispositivo
normativo la sanción del trato diferenciado ilícito y su carga probatoria.
This paper seeks to determine whether any unjustified differential treatment should be punished as a violation of Article 38 of the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense as an act of discrimination. Thus, through the analysis carried out, it has been noticed that the Peruvian legal system never specifically defined what would have been understood by the figure of illicit differential treatment, which led Indecopi to create this figure under its interpretative criteria and, as a consequence, to have problems in sanctioning such infringement under a regulatory scheme, as well as problems with the burden of proof. For this reason, the Indecopi would have tried to cover the aforementioned problem under a broad and erroneous interpretation of the figure of discrimination. Therefore, since they are different figures and since there is no other figure in the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense through which unlawful differentiated treatment can be sanctioned as such, it is proposed to include the sanction of unlawful differentiated treatment and its burden of proof in said normative provision.
This paper seeks to determine whether any unjustified differential treatment should be punished as a violation of Article 38 of the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense as an act of discrimination. Thus, through the analysis carried out, it has been noticed that the Peruvian legal system never specifically defined what would have been understood by the figure of illicit differential treatment, which led Indecopi to create this figure under its interpretative criteria and, as a consequence, to have problems in sanctioning such infringement under a regulatory scheme, as well as problems with the burden of proof. For this reason, the Indecopi would have tried to cover the aforementioned problem under a broad and erroneous interpretation of the figure of discrimination. Therefore, since they are different figures and since there is no other figure in the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense through which unlawful differentiated treatment can be sanctioned as such, it is proposed to include the sanction of unlawful differentiated treatment and its burden of proof in said normative provision.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Protección del consumidor--Legislación--Perú, Discriminación