Administrative Litigation Procedure in the General Process Organic Code
Abstract
The main objective of this work is to observe the innovations posed by the COGEP in the administrative contentious process and to detect the deficiencies that remain of the previous legislation.
For these purposes, the methodology that will be used, fundamentally, is to compare the current regulation with that contained in the previous Law of Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction and to highlight the novelties and the valuable or negative aspects of COGEP.
This article is developed in several parts that deal with the different problems posed by the COGEP regulation, namely the possibility of regulating the administrative contentious process in a general code and the convenience of orality. Next, a critical analysis of the regulation of the process presented by the new regulations will be carried out.
As we will show after the presentation to be made, we consider that orality is possible in the administrative contentious process, but the COGEP shows a serious deficiency because it does not overcome the old dogmas and obstacles that contained the repealed Law of Administrative Jurisdiction.
Downloads
References
Benalcázar Guerrón, J.C. (2006). Los Actos Administrativos Consensuales. Una Técnica para el Ejercicio de la Participación Ciudadana en las
Decisiones de la administración pública, (Serie Estudios Jurídicos, 35). México: UNAM.
Calvo Rojas, E. (2004). El Procedimiento en el Proceso Contencioso Administrativo Ordinario. Cuadernos y Estudios de Derecho Judicial. Donostia-San Sebastián: Consejo General del Poder Judicial. Versión en CD ROM.
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (3-III-2011). Caso Salvador Chiriboga vs. Ecuador, Sentencia, reparaciones y costas. En http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/ articulos/seriec_222_esp.pdf (recuperado el 1-XII-2016).
Dabin, J. (2003). Doctrina General del Estado. Elementos de Filosofía Política. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM.
Dromi, J.R. (1980). Derecho subjetivo y responsabilidad pública. Bogotá: Temis.
González Pérez, J. (1985). Derecho Procesal Administrativo Hispanoamericano. Bogotá: Temis.
Gordillo, A. (1998). Tratado de Derecho Administrativo: la defensa del usuario y del administrado, Bogotá: Fundación de Derecho Administrativo, Biblioteca Jurídica Dike.
Jiniesta Lobo, E. (s.f.). La Oralidad en el Nuevo Proceso Contencioso Administrativo. Portoviejo: Universidad San Gregorio.
Larrea Holguín, J. (1985). Derecho Civil del Ecuador, t. I, 4ª edición. Quito: Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones.
Oyarte Martínez, R. (2016). Debido Proceso. Quito: Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones.
Maritain, J. (1968). La Persona y el Bien Común, trad. de Leandro de Sesma. Buenos Aires: Club de Lectores.
Tobar Donoso, J. (1981). Elementos de Ciencia Política, 4a. ed. Quito: PUCE.
Venegas Álvarez, S. (1997). En Defensa de la Conciliación en el Contencioso Administrativo. En http://bibliohistorico.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/5/2391/23.pdf (recuperado el 1-XII-2016).
Normativa:
Ecuador: Codificación del Código Tributario (R.O. Supl. 38 de 14-VI-2005).
— Código Orgánico de la Función Judicial (R.O. Supl. 544 de 9-III-2009).
— Código Orgánico General de Procesos (R.O. Supl. 506 de 22-V- 2015).
— Constitución de la República del Ecuador (R.O. 449 de 20-X-2008).
— Ley de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa (R.O. 338 de 18-III-1968).
España, Ley 29/1998, Julio 13, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa.
Copyright (c) 2016 Juan Carlos Benalcázar Guerrón
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
