Inconstitucionalidad del artículo 8° D.U. N° 020-2020 e inaplicación de los principios de igualdad y proporcionalidad en el proceso cautelar
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2023
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo
Abstract
La presente investigación está enfocada en puntualizar si las exigencias señaladas en el artículo 8° del Decreto de Urgencia N° 020-2020 son inconstitucionales. Para tales efectos, se estudiaron conceptos como: tutela cautelar, principios que regulan la tutela cautelar, competencias de los Biblioteca de Derecho y CC. Políticas tribunales arbitrales y jurisdiccionales en materia de contrataciones con el Estado, presupuestos para acceder a la tutela cautelar, tipos de medida cautelar, principio de igualdad procesal, principio de proporcionalidad, entre otros. Cabe mencionar que los materiales que se emplearon para desarrollar la presente investigación son la doctrina, la jurisprudencia, la legislación nacional y las entrevistas concedidas por especialistas en la materia. Asimismo, se utilizaron los métodos dogmático, inductivo, deductivo, sintético y analítico. Entre los principales resultados encontramos que el Estado Peruano no se encuentra en una posición desfavorable que justifique instituir requisitos diferenciados al momento de solicitar y conceder una medida cautelar, en contraste con los exigidos a los contratistas; por lo que un trato diferenciado constituye desproporción y desigualdad procesal. Además, concluyo que los requisitos requeridos para el alcance a la tutela cautelar por parte de las empresas contratantes con el Estado Peruano resultan ser siempre de naturaleza patrimonial y excesivamente onerosa, otorgando así, un trato preferente e injustificado a favor del Estado en el acceso a la tutela cautelar, vulnerando principios tales como el de proporcionalidad e igualdad procesal y convirtiendo a la norma en inconstitucional.
ABSTRACT The present investigation is focused on specifying whether the requirements indicated in article 8 of Emergency Decree No. 020-2020 are unconstitutional. For this purpose, concepts such as: precautionary protection, powers of arbitration and jurisdictional courts in matters of contracting with Biblioteca de Derecho y CC. Políticas the state, the budgets for access to precautionary protection, the types of precautionary measure, the principle of procedural equality, the principle of proportionality, among others were studied. It is worth mentioning that the materials that were used to develop the present investigation are the doctrine, national legislation, jurisprudence and the interviews carried out with specialists on the field. Likewise, the dogmatic, deductive, inductive, analytical and synthetic methods were used. As main results, we found that the Peruvian State is not in an unfavorable position that justifies establishing differentiated requirements when accessing a precautionary request, in contrast to those required to contractor; therefore, differential treatment constitutes disproportion and procedural inequality. In addition, it was concluded that the requirements demanded for the scope of precautionary protection by the contracting companies with the Peruvian State always turn out to be patrimonial in nature and excessively onerous, thus granting a preferential and unjustified favor in favor of the State in access to precautionary protection, violating principles such as proportionality and procedural equality and making the rule unconstitutional.
ABSTRACT The present investigation is focused on specifying whether the requirements indicated in article 8 of Emergency Decree No. 020-2020 are unconstitutional. For this purpose, concepts such as: precautionary protection, powers of arbitration and jurisdictional courts in matters of contracting with Biblioteca de Derecho y CC. Políticas the state, the budgets for access to precautionary protection, the types of precautionary measure, the principle of procedural equality, the principle of proportionality, among others were studied. It is worth mentioning that the materials that were used to develop the present investigation are the doctrine, national legislation, jurisprudence and the interviews carried out with specialists on the field. Likewise, the dogmatic, deductive, inductive, analytical and synthetic methods were used. As main results, we found that the Peruvian State is not in an unfavorable position that justifies establishing differentiated requirements when accessing a precautionary request, in contrast to those required to contractor; therefore, differential treatment constitutes disproportion and procedural inequality. In addition, it was concluded that the requirements demanded for the scope of precautionary protection by the contracting companies with the Peruvian State always turn out to be patrimonial in nature and excessively onerous, thus granting a preferential and unjustified favor in favor of the State in access to precautionary protection, violating principles such as proportionality and procedural equality and making the rule unconstitutional.
Description
Keywords
La tutela cautelar, Contrataciones del Estado, Medidas cautelares, Principio de proporcionalidad