Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Quiñones, J., (2024). Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 057-2016-CD/OSIPTEL [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27866
Quiñones, J., Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 057-2016-CD/OSIPTEL []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27866
@misc{renati/536692,
title = "Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 057-2016-CD/OSIPTEL",
author = "Quiñones Ari, Jean Carlos",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
Title: Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución de Consejo Directivo N° 057-2016-CD/OSIPTEL
Authors(s): Quiñones Ari, Jean Carlos
Advisor(s): Moscol Salinas, Alejandro Martin
Keywords: Procedimiento administrativo--Perú; Nulidad (Derecho)--Perú; Retroactividad de las leyes--Perú; Interés público--Derecho; Derecho administrativo--Perú
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 21-May-2024
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: La nulidad de oficio en sede administrativa es una de las potestades de autotutela que
detenta la administración pública para corregir sus decisiones cuando se configuren
algunas de las causales de nulidad señaladas en el artículo 10 del Texto Único
Ordenado de la Ley del Procedimiento Administrativo General, Ley N° 27444, aprobado
mediante Decreto Supremo N° 004-2019-JUS (en adelante, TUOLPAG); y, cuando se
produzca una afectación al interés público, según la norma señalada. Es así que a través
de la Resolución N° 057-2016-CD/OSIPTEL (en adelante, la Resolución), el Consejo
Directivo del Organismo Supervisor de Inversión Privada en Telecomunicaciones (en
adelante CD y OSIPTEL, respectivamente) anuló de oficio la multa ascendente a 2
Unidades Impositivas Tributarias (UIT) en un primer momento impuesta a TELEFÓNICA
DEL PERÚ S.A.A. (en adelante, TELEFÓNICA), en el marco de un procedimiento
administrativo sancionador, modificándola a una de 51 UIT.
En el presente trabajo, se expondrá si la decisión tomada por el máximo órgano del
OSIPTEL fue correcta, a partir de su propia jurisprudencia administrativa, así como la
normativa pertinente, tal como la Ley N° 27336, Ley de Desarrollo de Funciones y
Facultades del OSIPTEL (en adelante, la LDFFO), el Reglamento General de
Infracciones y Sanciones, aprobado mediante Resolución N° 087-2013-CD/OSIPTEL y
modificatorias (en adelante, el REGIS), y el Texto Único Ordenado de las Condiciones
de Uso, aprobado mediante Resolución de Consejo Directivo Nº 138-2012-CD/OSIPTEL
y sus modificatorias (en adelante TUOCDU).
En base a un análisis del contenido de la Resolución materia del presente informe, se
sostendrá que dicha decisión no sería jurídicamente válida al haberse vulnerado: (i) el
debido procedimiento administrativo; (ii) configurarse la retroactividad benigna; y, (iii)
por la inexistencia de algún tipo de agravio al interés público por la primera multa
impuesta, por lo que se debió aplicar lo señalado en la LDFFO y no lo establecido en el
REGIS del OSIPTEL.
The ex officio annulment at administrative headquarters is one of the self-protection powers held by the public administration to correct its decisions when some of the causes of annulment indicated in article 10 of the Single Ordered Text of the Law of General Administrative Procedure, Law are configured. No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUOLPAG); and, when there is an impact on the public interest, according to the indicated standard. Thus, through Resolution No. 057-2016- CD/OSIPTEL (hereinafter, the Resolution), the Board of Directors of the Supervisory Body for Private Investment in Telecommunications (hereinafter CD and OSIPTEL, respectively) annulled the fine ex officio amounting to 2 Tax Units (UIT) initially imposed on TELEFÓNICA DEL PERÚ S.A.A. (hereinafter, TELEFÓNICA), within the framework of an administrative sanctioning procedure, modifying it to one of 51 UIT. 3 In this work, it will be explained whether the decision made by the highest body of OSIPTEL was correct, based on its own administrative jurisprudence, as well as the relevant regulations, such as Law No. 27336, Law on the Development of Functions and Powers of the OSIPTEL (hereinafter, the LDFFO), the General Regulation of Infractions and Sanctions, approved by Resolution No. 087-2013-CD/OSIPTEL and amendments (hereinafter, the REGIS), and the Single Ordered Text of the Conditions of Use, approved by Resolution of the Board of Directors No. 138-2012-CD/OSIPTEL and its amendments (hereinafter TUOCDU). Based on an analysis of the content of the Resolution that is the subject of this report, it will be argued that said decision would not be legally valid since: (i) due administrative procedure was violated; (ii) benign retroactivity is configured; and, (iii) due to the absence of any type of offense to the public interest due to the first fine imposed, so what was stated in the LDFFO should have been applied and not what was established in the OSIPTEL REGIS.
The ex officio annulment at administrative headquarters is one of the self-protection powers held by the public administration to correct its decisions when some of the causes of annulment indicated in article 10 of the Single Ordered Text of the Law of General Administrative Procedure, Law are configured. No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUOLPAG); and, when there is an impact on the public interest, according to the indicated standard. Thus, through Resolution No. 057-2016- CD/OSIPTEL (hereinafter, the Resolution), the Board of Directors of the Supervisory Body for Private Investment in Telecommunications (hereinafter CD and OSIPTEL, respectively) annulled the fine ex officio amounting to 2 Tax Units (UIT) initially imposed on TELEFÓNICA DEL PERÚ S.A.A. (hereinafter, TELEFÓNICA), within the framework of an administrative sanctioning procedure, modifying it to one of 51 UIT. 3 In this work, it will be explained whether the decision made by the highest body of OSIPTEL was correct, based on its own administrative jurisprudence, as well as the relevant regulations, such as Law No. 27336, Law on the Development of Functions and Powers of the OSIPTEL (hereinafter, the LDFFO), the General Regulation of Infractions and Sanctions, approved by Resolution No. 087-2013-CD/OSIPTEL and amendments (hereinafter, the REGIS), and the Single Ordered Text of the Conditions of Use, approved by Resolution of the Board of Directors No. 138-2012-CD/OSIPTEL and its amendments (hereinafter TUOCDU). Based on an analysis of the content of the Resolution that is the subject of this report, it will be argued that said decision would not be legally valid since: (i) due administrative procedure was violated; (ii) benign retroactivity is configured; and, (iii) due to the absence of any type of offense to the public interest due to the first fine imposed, so what was stated in the LDFFO should have been applied and not what was established in the OSIPTEL REGIS.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27866
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Espinosa Saldaña Barrera, Eloy Andrés; Sánchez Povis, Lucio Andrés; Moscol Salinas, Alejandro Martín
Register date: 21-May-2024
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License