Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Ñaupas, S., (2024). Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N.º 0001-2011/SC2-INDECOPI [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27827
Ñaupas, S., Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N.º 0001-2011/SC2-INDECOPI []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27827
@misc{renati/538275,
title = "Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N.º 0001-2011/SC2-INDECOPI",
author = "Ñaupas Gutiérrez, Susana",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
Title: Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N.º 0001-2011/SC2-INDECOPI
Authors(s): Ñaupas Gutiérrez, Susana
Advisor(s): Solórzano Solórzano, Raúl Roy
Keywords: Protección al consumidor--Perú; Bancos--Legislación--Perú; Personas con discapacidad--Perú; Discriminación--Perú
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 14-May-2024
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: El presente informe del análisis de la Resolución N.º 001-2011/SC-2-
INDECOPI tiene por objetivo exponer los razonamientos realizados por la Sala
de Defensa de la Competencia N.º 2 del Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la
Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) para
finalmente revocar la Resolución N.º 117-2010/INDECOPI-LAM, emitida el 29
de enero de 2010 por la Comisión de la Oficina Regional del Indecopi de
Lambayeque, que declaró infundada la denuncia presentada por Rosa
Margarita Cueva Tupac Yupanqui de Vignolo contra el Banco Falabella Perú
S.A. por infracción del artículo 7º-B del Decreto Legislativo N.º 716, Ley de
Protección al Consumidor.
En consecuencia, la Sala, por medio de la Resolución N.º 001-2011/SC-2-
INDECOPI, declaró fundada la denuncia de discriminación en el consumo
contra una persona con discapacidad, toda vez que el denunciado limitó a la
denunciante, de manera arbitraria, la renovación de su tarjeta de crédito,
sosteniendo como único eje argumentativo la imposibilidad de identificarla, toda
vez que la signatura carecía de exactitud respecto al documento nacional de
identidad (DNI), haciendo una interpretación de los artículos 4 y 11 de la
Resolución SBS N.º 264-2008, Reglamento de Tarjetas de Crédito.
En este contexto, la Sala del Indecopi evalúa el caso a través de instrumentos
jurídicos nacionales y supranacionales, con el propósito de establecer
diferencias entre trato diferenciado y discriminación, teniendo como principal
finalidad garantizar la dignidad humana, la autonomía, el libre desarrollo de la
persona y el derecho al bienestar, entre otros derechos de la persona con
discapacidad.
Finalmente, la Sala del Indecopi concluye que el caso debe hacerse de
conocimiento a la Superintendencia de Banca y Seguros para que establezcan
futuros lineamientos en favor de consumidores con condición de discapacidad y
no se vean limitados del ejercicio de sus derechos.
The objective of this report on the analysis of Resolution No. 001-2011/SC-2- INDECOPI is to present the reasoning carried out by the Competition Defense Chamber No. 2 of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) to finally revoke Resolution No. 117-2010/INDECOPI-LAM, issued on January 29, 2010 by the Commission of the Indecopi Regional Office of Lambayeque, which declared the complaint filed by Rosa Margarita Cueva Tupac Yupanqui de Vignolo against Banco Falabella Perú S.A. for violation of article 7º-B of Legislative Decree No. 716, Consumer Protection Law. Consequently, the Chamber, through Resolution No. 001-2011/SC-2- INDECOPI, declared the complaint of discrimination in consumption against a person with disabilities founded, since the accused limited the complainant, of arbitrarily, the renewal of her credit card, maintaining as the only argumentative axis the impossibility of identifying it, since the signature lacked accuracy with respect to the national identity document (DNI), making an interpretation of articles 4 and 11 of the SBS Resolution No. 264-2008, Credit Card Regulations. In this context, the Indecopi Chamber evaluates the case through national and supranational legal instruments, with the purpose of establishing differences between differential treatment and discrimination, with the main purpose of guaranteeing human dignity, autonomy, and the free development of the person. and the right to well-being, among other rights of the person with disabilities. Finally, the Indecopi Chamber concludes that the case must be brought to the attention of the Superintendency of Banking and Insurance so that they can establish future guidelines in favor of consumers with disabilities and not be limited in the exercise of their rights.
The objective of this report on the analysis of Resolution No. 001-2011/SC-2- INDECOPI is to present the reasoning carried out by the Competition Defense Chamber No. 2 of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) to finally revoke Resolution No. 117-2010/INDECOPI-LAM, issued on January 29, 2010 by the Commission of the Indecopi Regional Office of Lambayeque, which declared the complaint filed by Rosa Margarita Cueva Tupac Yupanqui de Vignolo against Banco Falabella Perú S.A. for violation of article 7º-B of Legislative Decree No. 716, Consumer Protection Law. Consequently, the Chamber, through Resolution No. 001-2011/SC-2- INDECOPI, declared the complaint of discrimination in consumption against a person with disabilities founded, since the accused limited the complainant, of arbitrarily, the renewal of her credit card, maintaining as the only argumentative axis the impossibility of identifying it, since the signature lacked accuracy with respect to the national identity document (DNI), making an interpretation of articles 4 and 11 of the SBS Resolution No. 264-2008, Credit Card Regulations. In this context, the Indecopi Chamber evaluates the case through national and supranational legal instruments, with the purpose of establishing differences between differential treatment and discrimination, with the main purpose of guaranteeing human dignity, autonomy, and the free development of the person. and the right to well-being, among other rights of the person with disabilities. Finally, the Indecopi Chamber concludes that the case must be brought to the attention of the Superintendency of Banking and Insurance so that they can establish future guidelines in favor of consumers with disabilities and not be limited in the exercise of their rights.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27827
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Pazos Hayashida, Javier Mihail; Niño de Guzman, Carolina Aquise
Register date: 14-May-2024
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.