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
Zuñiga Gomez, HailinIssue Date
2023-02-06Keywords
DerechosDebido proceso
Motivación de resoluciones
Proceso constitucional
Rights
Due process
Motivation of resolutions
Constitutional process
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Este trabajo analiza la decisión en mayoría adoptada por el Tribunal Constitucional en el marco de la sentencia recaída en el expediente N.º 03549-2021-AA/TC. Es un proceso constitucional de amparo en la que se analiza si hubo vulneración del derecho a la tutela procesal efectiva, el debido proceso y, en especial, el derecho a la debida motivación de las decisiones. El Banco Central de Reserva del Perú afirma que la casación 14107-2017 Lima, del 1 de diciembre de 2017 debe ser declarada nula por contravenir los derechos antes mencionados. Al respecto, el Tribunal Constitucional señala que no hubo vulneración de ningún derecho, muchos menos del derecho a la debida motivación, puesto que la sentencia fue correctamente motivada. Finalmente, dos magistrados consideran que sí hubo vulneración del derecho a la debida porque la casación cuestionada no expone las razones mínimas para declarar improcedente la demanda.This paper analyzes the majority decision adopted by the Constitutional Court in the framework of the judgment in case No. 03549-2021-AA/TC. It is a constitutional process of amparo in which it is analyzed whether there was a violation of the right to effective procedural protection, due process and, especially, the right to due motivation of decisions. The Central Reserve Bank of Peru claims that Cassation 14107-2017 Lima, dated December 1, 2017 should be declared null and void for contravening the aforementioned rights. In this regard, the Constitutional Court points out that there was no violation of any right, much less of the right to due motivation, since the sentence was correctly motivated. Finally, two magistrates consider that there was a violation of the right to due cause because the cassation in question does not state the minimum reasons for declaring the claim inadmissible.
Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisRights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLanguage
spaCollections
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Creative Commons


