Bibliographic citations
Chavez, M., (2023). Sentencia N° 265/2021 del Expediente 00001-2020-PI/TC “Caso de la sanción y prevención de la pesca ilegal” [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25542
Chavez, M., Sentencia N° 265/2021 del Expediente 00001-2020-PI/TC “Caso de la sanción y prevención de la pesca ilegal” []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25542
@misc{renati/17298,
title = "Sentencia N° 265/2021 del Expediente 00001-2020-PI/TC “Caso de la sanción y prevención de la pesca ilegal”",
author = "Chavez Macuado, Melady Steffania",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
This report analyzes the legal problems found in Judgment No. 265/2021 of File 00001-2020-PI/TC. Regarding the unconstitutionality claim by 5135 citizens against Legislative Decree No. 1393, issued as a result of Authoritative Law No. 30823; this with the objective of regulating the interdiction of illegal fishing activities. To analyze the constitutional validity of the Legislative Decree, we will analyze the content of the articles related to constitutional infractions and we will examine their affectation on fundamental rights in order to ensure or not that Legislative Decree No. 1393 is constitutional or becomes unconstitutional. In this sense, it is proposed as objectives i) to demonstrate that Legislative Decree No. 1393 has no defects of formal unconstitutionality, because they are within the confines of the matter delegated by Law No. 30823, ii) to show that article 3 of DL No. 1393, does not violate the right to property based on doctrine and jurisprudence, iii) demonstrate that article 6 of DL No. 1393, when providing for interdiction actions against illegal fishing, does not violate free private initiative, iv ) demonstrate that the Sole Transitory Complementary Provision violates the effective procedural protection, v) verify if the interdiction measures of the Third Final Complementary Provision of Legislative Decree No. 1393 violate the right of petition, vi) determine if the Second Final Complementary Provision is an excessive measure of the public function.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License