Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Gutarra, M., (2023). Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/24374
Gutarra, M., Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/24374
@misc{renati/528882,
title = "Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN",
author = "Gutarra Alburqueque, Max Gabriel",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
Title: Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN
Authors(s): Gutarra Alburqueque, Max Gabriel
Advisor(s): Sánchez Povis, Lucio Andrés
Keywords: Contrato de concesión--Perú; Procedimiento administrativo; Sanciones administrativas; Obligaciones (Derecho); Ferrocarriles--Perú--Reglamentos
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 1-Mar-2023
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: En el presente informe se analizará la resolución del Consejo Directivo N° 041-
2004-CD/OSITRAN donde el órgano regulador desarrolla un Procedimiento
Administrativo Sancionador con el que se le imputa a la Concesionaria
FETRANSA no haber cumplido con sus obligaciones estipuladas en la cláusula
7.5 del Contrato de Concesión de la administración de los Ferrocarriles Centro,
Sur y Sur Oriente. Una de estas obligaciones es la de supervisar el cumplimiento
de las Leyes Aplicables por parte de terceros que presten servicios ferroviarios.
Así, sucede que FETRANSA ha permitido que PERURAIL, en su calidad de
empresa operadora, circule en la vía férrea y transporte pasajeros con seis
coches nuevos, sin contar con la autorización otorgada por el MTC. De esta
manera, la operadora habría infringido lo estipulado en el artículo 451° del
Reglamento General de Ferrocarriles.
La finalidad de este trabajo es dilucidar si lo que se fundamenta en la citada
resolución tiene asidero en la normativa administrativa de la época. Por ello, este
análisis se diseccionará en tres problemas principales para discernir si es que el
acto administrativo está debidamente motivado y si no se ha infringido algún
Principio administrativo que rige su potestad sancionadora. Entonces, el primer
problema principal se enfoca en un dilema interpretativo tanto del Contrato de
Concesión como del Reglamento General de Ferrocarriles. El segundo problema
es relevante para comprender que la entidad debe aplicar los Principios durante
su función sancionadora. Finalmente, en el tercer problema se ha escogido
analizar el Compromiso de Cese como una figura novedosa en el sector de
infraestructura y en el transporte ferroviario para examinar si su tratamiento fue
el correcto.
This report is going to analyse the resolution of the “Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN” where the regulatory organization develops an Administrative Sanctioning Procedure with which the Concessionaire FETRANSA is accused of not having complied with its obligations stipulated in clause 7.5. of the Concession Contract for the administration of the Central, South and South East Railways. One of these obligations is to supervise compliance with Applicable Laws by third parties that provide rail services. Thus, it happens that FETRANSA has allowed PERURAIL, in its capacity as operating company, to circulate on the railway and transport passengers with six new cars, without having the authorization granted by the MTC. In this way, the operator would have violated the provisions of article 451 of the General Railway Regulations. The purpose of this work is to determine if what is based on the resolution mentioned has a foothold in the administrative regulations of the time. For this reason, it is going to dissect this analysis into three main problems to discern whether the administrative act is duly motivated and whether an administrative principle that governs its sanctioning power has not been infringed. So, the first main problem focuses on an interpretative dilemma of both the Concession Contract and the General Railway Regulations. The second issue is relevant to understand that the entity must apply the Principles during its sanctioning function. Finally, in the third problem it has been chosen to analyse the Commitment to Cease as a novel figure in the infrastructure sector and in the rail transport to examine if its treatment was correct.
This report is going to analyse the resolution of the “Consejo Directivo N° 041- 2004-CD/OSITRAN” where the regulatory organization develops an Administrative Sanctioning Procedure with which the Concessionaire FETRANSA is accused of not having complied with its obligations stipulated in clause 7.5. of the Concession Contract for the administration of the Central, South and South East Railways. One of these obligations is to supervise compliance with Applicable Laws by third parties that provide rail services. Thus, it happens that FETRANSA has allowed PERURAIL, in its capacity as operating company, to circulate on the railway and transport passengers with six new cars, without having the authorization granted by the MTC. In this way, the operator would have violated the provisions of article 451 of the General Railway Regulations. The purpose of this work is to determine if what is based on the resolution mentioned has a foothold in the administrative regulations of the time. For this reason, it is going to dissect this analysis into three main problems to discern whether the administrative act is duly motivated and whether an administrative principle that governs its sanctioning power has not been infringed. So, the first main problem focuses on an interpretative dilemma of both the Concession Contract and the General Railway Regulations. The second issue is relevant to understand that the entity must apply the Principles during its sanctioning function. Finally, in the third problem it has been chosen to analyse the Commitment to Cease as a novel figure in the infrastructure sector and in the rail transport to examine if its treatment was correct.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/24374
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Tassano Velaochaga, Hebert Eduardo; Sánchez Povis, Lucio Andrés; Moscol Salinas, Alejandro Martin
Register date: 1-Mar-2023
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License