Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Quevedo, M., (2022). Informe Jurídico de la Resolución N°0219-2018/SPC-INDECOPI [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/21641
Quevedo, M., Informe Jurídico de la Resolución N°0219-2018/SPC-INDECOPI []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/21641
@misc{renati/536185,
title = "Informe Jurídico de la Resolución N°0219-2018/SPC-INDECOPI",
author = "Quevedo Yparraguirre, Mayra Alessandra",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2022"
}
Title: Informe Jurídico de la Resolución N°0219-2018/SPC-INDECOPI
Authors(s): Quevedo Yparraguirre, Mayra Alessandra
Advisor(s): Solórzano Solórzano, Raúl Roy
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 15-Feb-2022
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: El régimen económico adoptado por nuestra Constitución es el de economía social de
mercado, es decir, los precios y las condiciones en el mismo se rigen por la oferta y la
demanda; y, en consecuencia, la intervención estatal se realiza de manera subsidiaria. No
obstante, en los últimos años, los pronunciamientos de INDECOPI parecen no ir acorde
al régimen económico estipulado en nuestra Constitución. Como evidencia de ello, en el
presente Informe se procederá a analizar el pronunciamiento de la Sala Especializada de
Protección al Consumidor del Indecopi en la Resolución N°0219-2018/SPC-INDECOPI,
mediante el cual la Sala concluye que la restricción de ingresar a las salas de cine con
alimentos o bebidas adquiridas fuera del establecimiento de Cineplex constituye una
cláusula abusiva de ineficacia absoluta que limita el derecho de elección del consumidor.
En ese sentido, el presente informe tiene por objetivo, usando como métodos el análisis
síntesis, análisis económico del derecho y derecho comparado, por un lado, evidenciar
que el Indecopi no realizó una correcta ponderación entre el derecho a la libertad de
empresa y el derecho a la libre elección del consumidor, y que ello no solo se torna
inconstitucional, sino que también afecta al mercado y a los agentes económicos que
intervienen en el mismo; por el otro, demostrar que la restricción del acceso al cine con
alimentos o bebidas adquiridas fuera de Cineplex no constituye una cláusula abusiva, sino
que es una restricción que el proveedor le hace al consumidor avalándose en su derecho
de libertad y autoorganización empresarial.
The economic regime adopted by our Constitution is the social market economy, that is, prices and conditions are governed by supply and demand; and, consequently, state intervention is carried out in a subsidiary manner. However, in recent years, INDECOPI's pronouncements seem not to be consistent with the economic regime stipulated in our Constitution. As evidence of this, this Report will proceed to analyze the pronouncement of Indecopi's Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection in Resolution N° 0219-2018 / SPC-INDECOPI, through which the Chamber concludes that the restriction to enter movie theaters with food or drinks purchased outside the Cineplex establishment constitutes an abusive clause of absolute ineffectiveness that limits the consumer's right of choice. In this sense, this report aims, using synthesis analysis, economic analysis of law and comparative law as methods, on the one hand, to show that Indecopi did not make a correct balance between the right to the freedom of business and the consumer's right of choice, and that this not only becomes unconstitutional, but also affects the market and the economic agents that intervene in it; on the other, to demonstrate that the restriction of access to the cinema with food and or drinks purchased outside Cineplex does not constitute an abusive clause, but rather is a restriction that the supplier makes to the consumer, guaranteeing his right to freedom and business self-organization.
The economic regime adopted by our Constitution is the social market economy, that is, prices and conditions are governed by supply and demand; and, consequently, state intervention is carried out in a subsidiary manner. However, in recent years, INDECOPI's pronouncements seem not to be consistent with the economic regime stipulated in our Constitution. As evidence of this, this Report will proceed to analyze the pronouncement of Indecopi's Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection in Resolution N° 0219-2018 / SPC-INDECOPI, through which the Chamber concludes that the restriction to enter movie theaters with food or drinks purchased outside the Cineplex establishment constitutes an abusive clause of absolute ineffectiveness that limits the consumer's right of choice. In this sense, this report aims, using synthesis analysis, economic analysis of law and comparative law as methods, on the one hand, to show that Indecopi did not make a correct balance between the right to the freedom of business and the consumer's right of choice, and that this not only becomes unconstitutional, but also affects the market and the economic agents that intervene in it; on the other, to demonstrate that the restriction of access to the cinema with food and or drinks purchased outside Cineplex does not constitute an abusive clause, but rather is a restriction that the supplier makes to the consumer, guaranteeing his right to freedom and business self-organization.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/21641
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Rejanovinschi Talledo, Moises Arturo; Solórzano Solórzano, Raúl Roy; Manzur Filomeno, Karin Paola
Register date: 15-Feb-2022
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License