La atención oportuna e inmediata de los reclamos en las relaciones de consumo,
dio lugar a la creación de un mecanismo de solución de reclamos alternativo a la
tutela jurisdiccional, dado que la vía ordinaria, debido al tráfico jurídico procesal,
no garantizaba una pronta solución a los derechos conculcados de los
consumidores. No obstante, la posibilidad que las resoluciones del Tribunal del
Indecopi sean revisadas por un juez judicial, más allá de garantizar la autonomía
e independencia con la que serán juzgados las partes, impiden acceder a una
auténtica tutela efectiva.
En todo caso, dejemos que el consumidor decida en qué vía ejercerá su acción
defensiva, pero exigir agotar la vía administrativa, para transitar por la vía
ordinaria, vulnera el derecho de acceder a una tutela efectiva, ello si
consideramos que para llegar a la tutela jurisdiccional debemos acudir al
Indecopi. En ese sentido, si por un lado, la decisión determinante y definitiva la
tiene la tutela jurisdiccional, exigir transitar por la vía administrativa constituye
una barrera de acceso a la justicia. Por el contrario, si revestimos de mayor
utilidad e importancia a la tutela administrativa, no será necesario la vía ordinaria.
En ese sentido, dejemos que compitan ambas vías, ya que cuentan con las
mismas garantías del debido proceso. Solo así estaremos ante un derecho
eficiente y predecible, pues en la medida que se desburocratice la tutela
jurisdiccional, habrá menos reclamos frustrados que no pudieron llegar a la
última instancia debido al costo de transacción que ello implica. / Timely and immediate attention to claims in consumer relations is undoubtedly
one of the concerns that motivated the creation of an alternative claims resolution
mechanism to judicial protection, which is designed within the protective horizon
established in the article. 65° of our Constitution, since the ordinary way due to
the procedural legal traffic, would not guarantee a prompt solution to the rights
violated in consumer relations. Under this scenario, the possibility that the
resolutions of the Indecopi Court are reviewed by a judicial judge, beyond
guaranteeing the autonomy and independence with which they will be judged,
prevent access to an authentic effective protection. This, if we start from the
premise that the same guarantees of due process developed in the ordinary way
will be those guarantees with which the final resolutions will be issued.
In any case, we let the consumer decide in which way he will exercise his
defensive action, but demanding to exhaust the administrative route, to transit
through the ordinary route, violates the right to access effective protection, this if
we consider that to reach the protection jurisdiction we must go to Indecopi. In
this sense, if on the one hand, the decisive and definitive decision is held by the
jurisdictional guardianship, demanding to go through the administrative route
constitutes a barrier to access to justice. On the contrary, if we make
administrative protection more useful and important, the ordinary route will not be
necessary. In that sense, let both ways compete, since they have the same
guarantees of due process. Only then will we be faced with an efficient and
predictable law, because to the extent that judicial protection becomes less
bureaucratic, there will be fewer frustrated claims that could not reach the last
instance due to the transaction cost that this implies. / Trabajo académico
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/24658 |
| Date | 14 April 2023 |
| Creators | García Lavado, Alex Orlando |
| Contributors | Solórzano Solórzano, Raúl Roy |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, Atribución 2.5 Perú, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/pe/ |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds