Informe sobre expediente de relevancia jurídica, N° 171280, E- 2596, análisis sobre la responsabilidad administrativa por incumplimientos al compromiso ambiental, el conflicto con la función jurisdiccional y garantías del procedimiento administrativo sancionador
Date
2024-12-03
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
En el procedimiento administrativo sancionador en materia ambiental, el OEFA determina la
responsabilidad administrativa en vista del incumplimiento a un compromiso ambiental; en ese
sentido, no es competencia de esta entidad determinar la viabilidad del compromiso ambiental.
No obstante, cuando se trata del compromiso ambiental de remediación, es común la confusión
entre esta y la metodología o técnica adoptada para el cumplimiento del compromiso en cuestión.
En ese sentido, en el caso de Pluspetrol, es importante dejar en claro que la única manera para
que se configure el eximente de responsabilidad sería acreditar que el proceso de regeneración
natural se trata de un caso fortuito, fuerza mayor o hecho determinante por tercero y que, de
cumplirse el compromiso ambiental, se contravendrían los principios de precaución y de
prevención, el Reglamento para la Protección Ambiental en las Actividades de Hidrocarburos y
la Ley de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Por otro lado, en atención al proceso contencioso
administrativo iniciado contra el MINEM, en el que se discute la viabilidad de la metodología de
remediación del Yacimiento Yanayacu, no se configuraría el supuesto para que el OEFA se inhiba
del procedimiento sancionador; finalmente, la Resolución Directoral que impone la sanción, y la
Resolución TFA, habrían sido emitidos en el marco de los principios de razonabilidad y debido
procedimiento, ya que la ausencia en una norma de la fórmula para el cálculo de la multa no
significa que el OEFA deba dejar de ejercer su potestad sancionadora, sobre todo si cumplió con
la debida motivación y en el marco del ejercicio de su discrecionalidad.
In the administrative sanctioning procedure in environmental matters, the OEFA determines the administrative responsibility in view of the non-compliance with an environmental commitment; in this sense, it is not the competence of this entity to determine the viability of the environmental commitment. However, when it comes to the environmental remediation commitment, it is common the confusion between this and the methodology or technique adopted for the compliance of the commitment in question. In this sense, in the case of Pluspetrol, it is important to make it clear that the only way for the exoneration of liability to be configured would be to prove that the natural regeneration process is a fortuitous event, force majeure or determining fact by third parties and that, if the environmental commitment were fulfilled, the principles of precaution and prevention, the Regulations for Environmental Protection in Hydrocarbon Activities and the Law of Protected Natural Areas would be contravened. On the other hand, in view of the contentious administrative proceeding initiated against MINEM, in which the viability of the remediation methodology of the Yanayacu Oilfield is being discussed, the OEFA would not be able to abstain from the sanctioning procedure; finally, the Directorial Resolution imposing the sanction, and the TFA Resolution, would have been issued within the framework of the principles of reasonableness and due process, since the absence in a regulation of the formula for the calculation of the fine does not mean that the OEFA should cease to exercise its sanctioning power, especially if it complied with the due motivation and within the framework of the exercise of its discretion.
In the administrative sanctioning procedure in environmental matters, the OEFA determines the administrative responsibility in view of the non-compliance with an environmental commitment; in this sense, it is not the competence of this entity to determine the viability of the environmental commitment. However, when it comes to the environmental remediation commitment, it is common the confusion between this and the methodology or technique adopted for the compliance of the commitment in question. In this sense, in the case of Pluspetrol, it is important to make it clear that the only way for the exoneration of liability to be configured would be to prove that the natural regeneration process is a fortuitous event, force majeure or determining fact by third parties and that, if the environmental commitment were fulfilled, the principles of precaution and prevention, the Regulations for Environmental Protection in Hydrocarbon Activities and the Law of Protected Natural Areas would be contravened. On the other hand, in view of the contentious administrative proceeding initiated against MINEM, in which the viability of the remediation methodology of the Yanayacu Oilfield is being discussed, the OEFA would not be able to abstain from the sanctioning procedure; finally, the Directorial Resolution imposing the sanction, and the TFA Resolution, would have been issued within the framework of the principles of reasonableness and due process, since the absence in a regulation of the formula for the calculation of the fine does not mean that the OEFA should cease to exercise its sanctioning power, especially if it complied with the due motivation and within the framework of the exercise of its discretion.
Description
Keywords
Responsabilidad social de las empresas, Derecho administrativo sancionador--Perú, Impacto ambiental--Aspectos jurídicos, Protección ambiental, Debido proceso--Perú
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/embargoedAccess