Bibliographic citations
Irribarren, R., (2024). Informe Jurídico sobre la Resolución No. 10 del Expediente No. 00291-2021-0-1817-SP-CO-02, anulación de Laudo Arbitral por resolver materias no susceptibles de arbitraje [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28502
Irribarren, R., Informe Jurídico sobre la Resolución No. 10 del Expediente No. 00291-2021-0-1817-SP-CO-02, anulación de Laudo Arbitral por resolver materias no susceptibles de arbitraje []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28502
@misc{renati/22127,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre la Resolución No. 10 del Expediente No. 00291-2021-0-1817-SP-CO-02, anulación de Laudo Arbitral por resolver materias no susceptibles de arbitraje",
author = "Irribarren Calderon, Roy Manuel",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
The purpose of this legal report is to analyze the reasoning of the Superior Chamber in relation to Article 41 of Legislative Decree No. 1017 by virtue of Resolution No. 10 of Case No. 00291-2021-0-1817-SP-CO-02. We will mainly discuss whether it is correct, as the Superior Chamber considered, that any controversy related to an additional work is prohibited from being submitted to an arbitration process, or on the contrary, according to the position we will defend, whether we are facing an erroneous interpretation, since the referred prohibition only excludes from arbitrability controversial issues related to unapproved additional works or the decision to approve additional works. Likewise, in this report, we will argue how the prohibition contained in Article 41 of Legislative Decree No. 1017 should be interpreted from a restrictive reading, which did not occur in the decision of the Superior Chamber. Likewise, we will discuss how the legislator's intention was always to exclude from arbitration only disputes arising from unapproved additions. This fact will also be seen from a historical development of the normative evolution of the referred prohibition. Finally, we will conclude that the Superior Chamber had an erroneous reading of the aforementioned article, and therefore should not have annulled ex officio the arbitration award in question, emphasizing that its decision seriously affects legal certainty in state contracting.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License