Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Azañero Arrieta, Anabel LuceroIssue Date
2023-02-01Keywords
Competencia deslealViolación de normas
Plataforma de servicio de taxi
Tenencia de menor
Interés superior del niño
Régimen de visitas
Unfair competition
Violation of regulations
Taxi service platform
Child custody
Best interest of the child
Visiting schedule
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
En el presente trabajo de suficiencia profesional se analizan dos expedientes; el primer expediente de derecho privado el cual la controversia principal versa sobre quién es el progenitor ideal, capaz y competente para ejercer la tenencia de menor, dado las condiciones que cada uno posee, primando el interés superior del niño. En un primer tramo, el Juzgado declara infundada la demanda posteriormente la Sala declara Nula la primera sentencia tomando en consideración esperar el resultado final de la solicitud de cancelación de partida de la menor y ordena al A-quo emitir una nueva sentencia. En el segundo tramo, el Juzgado de primera instancia nuevamente declara infundada la demanda y la Sala finalmente decide revocar la sentencia emitida por el Juzgado, reformando en fundada la demanda en favor del demandante. Por otro lado, el segundo expediente de derecho público versa entre La Asociación de Consumidores Indignados Perú en contra de Uber Perú y Uber B.V, la controversia surge por la presunta competencia desleal en el modo de violación de normas que se encuentra asentado en la Ley de Represión de la Competencia Desleal Art. 14°, numeral 2 literal B, dado que estarían prestando el servicio de taxi sin contar con la autorización de la Gerencia de Transporte Urbano, ello establecido en los artículos 11 y 12 de la Ordenanza N°1684- disposición que regula la prestación de servicio de Taxi en Lima Metropolitana. Ambos presentan alegatos en el cual se debe analizar la verdadera naturaleza del Aplicativo Uber, si este es un proveedor o un intermediario del servicio.In the present work of professional sufficiency two files are analyzed; the first private law file in which the main controversy is about who is the most suitable parent to be able to exercise custody, given the conditions that each one has, prioritizing the best interests of the child. In a first section, the Court declares the claim unfounded, later the Chamber declares the first sentence null, taking into consideration waiting for the result of the request for cancellation of the minor's departure and orders the A-quo to issue a new sentence. In the second section, the Court of First Instance again declares the claim unfounded, and the Chamber finally decides to revoke the sentence issued by the Court, reforming the claim in favor of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the second file of public law is between the Association of Indignant Consumers Peru against Uber Peru and Uber B.V. The dispute arises due to the alleged unfair competition in the form of violation of regulations established in literal B numeral 14.2 of the Art. 14 of the Law for the Repression of Unfair Competition, due to the fact that they would be providing the taxi service without having the authorization of the Urban Transport Management, which is established in articles 11 and 12 of Ordinance 1684- Ordinance that regulates the provision of taxi service in Metropolitan Lima. Both present arguments in which the true nature of the Uber Application must be analyzed whether it is a provider or an intermediary of the service.
Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisRights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Language
spaCollections
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Creative Commons