Análisis de Actos Administrativos y Contratos Estatales
Cargado por
yaneth RoaAnálisis de Actos Administrativos y Contratos Estatales
Cargado por
yaneth RoaCommon questions
Con tecnología de IAImplications include jurisprudential challenges that can lead to voiding the decree's application, if found unconstitutional. The assertion against the decree's legitimacy - such as breached property rights - indicates potential overreach or misalignment with constitutional protections, necessitating thorough judicial review to assess validity and accord with legislative intent .
Key components include demonstrating externalities like third-party delays, regulatory undefined aspects, or unforeseen natural conditions. The dispute relies on showing causation chains attributing delays externally, supported by documented evidence of stakeholder actions, and legal arguments for indemnity based on mutual interference in contract execution .
The legality is contingent on adherence to procedural safeguards, such as notifying involved parties, allowing for contestation, and factual basis for revocation. Although Resolution No. 2269 revoked recognition and terminated the contract, legality hinges on whether due process was observed and if the No. 4760 recognition was accurately executed and subsequently evidenced as improper .
Circumstances include exceeding delegated legislative scope, misalignments with constitutional mandates, or infringing rights. Contestation occurs through constitutional complaints or judicial review mechanisms, typically questioning decree intent, scope, and adherence to statutory delegation ensuring constitutional supremacy preservation .
Factors include examining project timelines for disproportionality between imposed penalties and delay justification, evidence of counterpart's non-performance, and procedural compliance in penalty enactment—backed by contemporaneous communication records, counterclaims of obstruction, and mitigation efforts which might influence adjudicating provisions .
Loss of executive force occurs when an act is rendered unenforceable due to procedural or factual grounds, such as non-compliance with temporal requirements, while nullity pertains to intrinsic legal dispositions that contravene higher laws or principles. For decrees, loss of force might result from expiration or redundancy; nullity requires evidence of constitutional violations .
Arguments against allowing deductions assert that such actions bypass contractual balance and negate stipulated penalty intent, which primarily serves as deterrence. Furthermore, pre-deduction prior to adjudicating relevant disputes contravenes fair remedy provisions, leading possibly to unjust enrichment, as penalties should reflect proven delays or deviations .
Public entities justify unilateral termination of state contracts primarily due to substantial breaches by the counterparty or supervening administrative irregularities. The validity conditions include ensuring the administrative actions comply with relevant legal frameworks and providing due process rights, such as allowing defenses or remedies for the contractor .
The legal basis for the revocation was outlined in Resolution No. 2269 dated May 28, 2020, which rescinded Resolution No. 4760 that had initially recognized Pepita Pérez. This revocation became effective due to unresolved issues in the verification of assets. However, the resolution was considered applicable as it followed due administrative procedures by allowing the recours de reposición, confirmed by the subsequent Resolution No. 4193 on December 1, 2020 .
The demandante claimed false motivation due to the premature issuance of the penalty relative to the declaration of caducity, rendering the penalty ineffectual. Additionally, there was a misalignment between the administrative action and actual conditions, as delays were caused by the entity’s failure to deliver land, issues with utility poles, and environmental clearance delays, none attributable to the contractor .
