Analysis of the Decision 210-15-SEP-CC Which Develop the Protection Action Versus the Unilateral Termination of a Contract
The writ of protection was established in the 2008 Constitution as a mechanism for safeguarding constitutional rights when they are violated. Constitutional requirements include the violation of rights by an act or omission of non-judicial public authorities or private individuals in specific situat...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | Ecuador |
| Institución: | Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar |
| Repositorio: | Revista FORO: REVISTA DE DERECHO |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:revistas.uasb.edu.ec:article/467 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.uasb.edu.ec/index.php/foro/article/view/467 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | acción de protección garantías jurisdiccionales terminación unilateral de contrato vía constitucional vía legal. |
| Sumario: | The writ of protection was established in the 2008 Constitution as a mechanism for safeguarding constitutional rights when they are violated. Constitutional requirements include the violation of rights by an act or omission of non-judicial public authorities or private individuals in specific situations. The primarily legal development of this guarantee has established an additional requirement: that the act that may violate rights not be subject to challenge through administrative litigation or that no other adequate remedy exists to protect the rights. Based on this background, the Constitutional Court issued ruling No. 210-15-SEP-CC, in which it held that a writ of protection cannot be filed against the unilateral termination of a contract, since such termination is subject to challenge through administrative litigation. Therefore, this analysis will seek to determine whether it is true that a writ of protection cannot be filed against this form of contract termination, taking into account the jurisprudential development of the Constitutional Court. |
|---|