The Experts below are selected from a list of 5637 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ernesto Matallana Camacho - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
accion popular de moralidad administrativa popular action of administrative morality
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Ernesto Matallana CamachoAbstract:La Accion Popular de Moralidad Administrativa es una accion de origen constitucional (art. 88) que tiene un desarrollo legal con la expedicion de la Ley 472 de 1998, que tenia dentro de sus caracteristicas un incentivo economico del 15%, el cual fue eliminado por el ultimo articulo de la Ley 1425 de 2010. Dentro de las reformas propuestas en el nuevo Codigo Contencioso Administrativo se encuentra el superar el debate jurisprudencial si a traves de la accion se pueden anular actos o contratos, lo cual es prohibido de entrada por el articulo 144 de la Ley 1437 de 2011, que ademas crea un requisito de procedibilidad, en donde el accionante debe dirigirse primero a la entidad y plantearle la posible violacion del derecho colectivo.La jurisprudencia tiene definida la moralidad administrativa como el derecho que tiene la comunidad a que el patrimonio publico sea manejado de acuerdo con la legislacion vigente, con la diligencia y cuidado propio de un buen funcionario. Si bien la posicion del Consejo de Estado es que no es posible la acumulacion de procesos, creemos que puede ser revisable al eliminarse el incentivo economico. Adicionalmente la doctrina de juez de lo contencioso considera que la accion popular al tener un objeto juridico a proteger que el derecho colectivo, la hace autonoma respecto de otras acciones y ademas tiene un caracter principal por esa misma razon.Otra jurisprudencia aborda el criterio de ponderacion a la hora de tomar una decision de proteccion de un derecho colectivo, cuando se enfrenten principios donde ninguno tiene un caracter absoluto, que se encuentren sustentando instituciones juridicas y el juez popular debera decidir a cual debera darsele mayor prioridad. La Administracion dentro de la gestion publica puede sacrificar unos principios por la aplicacion de otros cuando esta ejecutando una norma, en esa medida; o bien, la Administracion efectuo una inadecuada ponderacion y en ese caso el juez popular podra privarla de validez; o en otro caso, el juez popular puede llegar a concluir que solo habia una unica solucion de ponderacion; y en ultimo caso, si existieran varias posibles soluciones con la exigencia de ponderacion, el juez popular no debera sustituir con la decision a favor de una de ellas y en este caso se respetara la tomada por la Administracion. Este metodo es utilizado para hacer mas eficiente el control del juez popular sobre decisiones que tengan el caracter de discrecionales de la Administracion, cuando con estas decisiones se comprometan derechos colectivos.En este caso es posible pensar que con la celebracion de un contrato se pueden vulnerar derechos colectivos como el de la moralidad administrativa y se ratifica con otra jurisprudencia donde se reconoce que el principio de planeacion forma parte de los deberes de las entidades estatales. Para la jurisprudencia la moralidad tiene los siguientes significados: no es sinonimo de legalidad y no es un concepto subjetivo; por el contrario, una demostracion de inmoralidad es el desvio de poder, asi que adicional a la demostracion de la ilegalidad de la actuacion se requiere probar el desvio de poder.Finalmente en cuanto a la expedicion del nuevo Codigo Contencioso Administrativo sobre la actual Accion de Moralidad Administrativa debemos reiterar que la ley limita de manera definitiva la competencia del juez popular de anular un acto administrativo o un contrato como consecuencia de la vulneracion de un derecho colectivo, en este caso del derecho de moralidad administrativa. Por otra parte, se crea un requisito de procedibilidad que consiste en la obligacion de quien va a interponer la accion, de requerir a la entidad sobre la violacion del principio de moralidad y luego si entonces se interpone la accion correspondiente, salvo un caso de violacion inminente que requiera la intervencion judicial y en este caso debera quedar la sustentacion en la demanda. Si no se atiende este requisito de procedibilidad el juez administrativo tendra la facultad de rechazar la demanda.Popular Action of Administrative Morality is an act of constitutional origin (art. 88) that has a legal development to the issuance of Law 472 of 1998, which had within its features a financial incentive of 15%, which was eliminated by the last section of Law 1425 of 2010. Among the reforms proposed in the new Code of Administrative overcome is the jurisprudential debate whether through action or actions may void contracts, which entry is forbidden by Article 144 of Act 1437 of 2011, which also establishing a Procedural Requirement, where the plaintiff must first contact the entity and addressing potential violation of collective rights. The case law has defined administrative morality as the right of the community to which public property is managed in accordance with current legislation, with due diligence and proper care of a good official. Although the State Council´s position is that it is possible the accumulation process, we believe it may be reviewable by eliminating the economic incentive. Additionally, the doctrine of contentious court finds that the class action to have a legal order to protect the collective right, make it autonomous from other activities and also has a main character for that very reason. The management within the public administration can sacrifice principles for the implementation of others when you are running a standard, to that extent, or made an improper administration weighting and then the judge can deprive people of validity, or otherwise The popular judge may conclude that there was only one solution weighting, and in case if there are several possible solutions with the weight Requirement, the court shall not substitute popular decision in favor of one of them and in this be respected if taken by the administration. Another case deals with the weighted criterion when making a decision to protect a collective right, when faced principles where none is absolute they are upholding legal institutions and popular judge must decide what should be given higher priority. For the case morality has the following meanings: it is not synonymous with legality and not a subjective concept. A demonstration of immorality is the diversion of power, so in addition to demonstrating the illegality of the performance test is required diversion of power. On the other hand creates a Procedural Requirement that is the obligation of the person to bring the action, to require the entity of the violation of the principle of morality and then if then appropriate action is filed, unless an imminent rape case requiring judicial intervention in this case must be lift in demand. In this case it is conceivable that with the conclusion of a contract may violate rights groups such as administrative morality and confirms another case where it is recognized that the principle of planning is part of the duties of state agencies. Finally, regarding the issuance of the new Code of Administrative action on the current administrative morality we must reiterate that the law limits a definitive popular jurisdiction of the court to annul an administrative act or a contract as a result of the breach of a collective right in this case the right to administrative morality. If not addressed this Procedural Requirement the administrative law judge has the power to reject the demand.
Alfonso Jaime Martinez Lazcano - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transformacion del control de convencionalidad concentrado al difuso en el sistema interamericano de derechos humanos transformation of control conventional conventionality to the diffusion in the system inter american law
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Alfonso Jaime Martinez LazcanoAbstract:Spanish Abstract: El control difuso de convencionalidad debe ser ejercido por todos los organos del Estado, especialmente por quienes realizan materialmente funciones jurisdiccionales, y por las instituciones de caracter convencional creadas por los propios Estados para supervisar el cumplimiento del conjunto de derechos y libertades pactados, esta exigencia procesal la deben ejercer de oficio al resolver los conflictos juridicos, en primera instancia le corresponde por regla general a los Estados, por medio del conjunto de instituciones propias establecidas para tutelar los derechos humanos, pero si estas no son eficaces, de manera subsidiaria, coadyuvante y complementaria es factible concurrir al Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, para que ante esa instancia se decida si se violaron o no los derechos convencionales, constitucionales y legales. Es equivocado senalar que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos realiza un tipo de control concentrado y los Estados de caracter difuso, ambas instancias estan obligadas a ejercerlo, solo hay un tipo de control, es factible senalarlo como control convencional horizontal, tanto para los tribunales nacionales como las instituciones convencionales estan obligados en base a las mismas fuentes juridicas, claro la interpretacion definitiva de estas es la que realiza la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos toda vez que sus fallos son definitivos e inapelables. English Abstract: The diffuse control of conventionality must be exercised by all the organs of the State, especially by those who materially perform jurisdictional functions, and by the institutions of a conventional nature created by the States themselves to supervise the compliance with the set of rights and freedoms agreed upon, this Procedural Requirement must be exerted ex officio when resolving legal conflicts, in the first instance it corresponds to the States as a general rule, through the set of own institutions established to protect human rights, but If these are not effective, in a subsidiary, adjuvant and complementary way, it is feasible to attend the Inter-American Human Rights System, so that before that instance it is decided whether or not the conventional, constitutional and legal rights were violated. It is wrong to point out that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights performs a type of concentrated control and states of diffuse nature, both instances are required to exercise it, there is only one type of control, it is feasible to point it out as conventional horizontal control, both for national courts As conventional institutions are bound based on the same legal sources, of course the definitive interpretation of these is the one made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights since its decisions are final and unappealable.
Anthony J Cuvo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on stimulus generalization and stimulus classes
Journal of Behavioral Education, 2003Co-Authors: Anthony J CuvoAbstract:Stimulus generalization has been defined as the spread of effect of reinforcement for responses emitted in the presence of one stimulus to different stimuli presented under extinction conditions. As a result of stimulus generalization, novel stimuli come to exert stimulus control over members of the response class. Studies in the applied behavior analysis literature, however, have reported experimental preparations that included prompting and reinforcement procedures during what were claimed to be stimulus generalization conditions. These studies violated the Procedural Requirement that stimulus generalization be tested under extinction conditions. Responses that come under the control of a class of stimuli may do so by direct training or by stimulus generalization. It is desirable for organisms to respond in the presence of members of an appropriately constructed stimulus class, but we should understand the mechanism of entry into the class by its members. If inaccurate claims of stimulus generalization are made when training procedures are used in the ostensible generalization conditions, the robustness of the original training procedures will be over estimated. By adhering to the operational Requirements of behavioral definitions, we could better understand the power and limits of our educational and training procedures.
Joshua Ulan Galperin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does the compensation clause burden the government or benefit the owner the compensation clause as process
University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development, 2011Co-Authors: Joshua Ulan GalperinAbstract:One of many ideas indelibly drawn in the legal vernacular is that “if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” This workhorse of a phrase has shouldered the bulk of the regulatory takings doctrine since the first half of the last century. So much ink has been spilled in an attempt to parse the meaning of “too far,” and yet the academic and judicial communities have made little progress towards a better understanding. This article, therefore, seeks to divert some attention away from the meaning of “taking”, and put a little more focus on the function of “compensation” by looking to the language of the Constitution and the fundamental purpose of the Takings Clause.Trying to divine the fundamental purpose of any constitutional language is a difficult task -- where do we even start? One thing we can say with some certainty is that much of the practical debate about the Takings Clause surrounds compensation--when must the government pay a property owner for a loss or devaluation of property? Thus, at the center of any practical analysis of the Takings Clause should be the real purpose and meaning of “compensation.” Not only how much compensation is “just,” but also when (under what circumstances) is compensation due at all. This article proposes that simply because property has been “taken,” whatever that means, compensation is not necessarily due.The general thesis of this article is that the Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a Procedural Requirement, not a substantive one, that is intended to burden the government and not benefit the property owner. Hopefully, the continual focus on what regulations amount to takings may be relegated to an academic question and the question that both governments and landowners care about--whether compensation is due -- is given more importance.
Ivanoff Siado, Liubinca Marta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Eficacia de la conciliación en la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa cuando versan sobre impuestos nacionales, en el Departamento del Atlántico
2019Co-Authors: Ivanoff Siado, Liubinca MartaAbstract:La conciliación como mecanismo alternativo de solución de conflicto, es una excelente herramienta para la descongestión de los despachos judiciales y para el acercamiento de las partes en pos de un resultado que traiga paz a las diferencias entre los ciudadanos o entre estos y el Estado. Pero al igual que cada herramienta de un taller tiene una propiedad y una oportunidad válida para utilizarse, aunque sean muy efectivas solo son eficaces cuando se usa correcta, adecuada y objetivamente. Es por ello que la presente monografía busca indagar cuál ha sido la eficacia de la herramienta de la Conciliación en materia contenciosa administrativa específicamente en la materia de impuestos nacionales, la cual ha prevalecido por tener intrínseca una naturaleza no conciliatoria por virtud de la norma. Encontramos de un lado las conciliaciones judiciales que son autorizadas por ley, las cuales buscan normalizar la cartera e incentivar a los contribuyentes para pagar sus deudas a la Nación, permitiendo el aumento el recaudo mediante el establecimiento de beneficios tributarios o condiciones especiales de pago, en este caso vemos que la conciliación judicial es muy positiva para las partes porque ambas ganan. Pero contraria a la anterior situación, encontramos en la Ley 1437 de 2011 artículo 192 el siguiente aparte: … “Cuando el fallo de primera instancia sea de carácter condenatorio y contra el mismo se interponga el recurso de apelación, el Juez o Magistrado deberá citar a audiencia de conciliación, que deberá celebrarse antes de resolver sobre la concesión del recurso. La asistencia a esta audiencia será obligatoria. Si el apelante no asiste a la audiencia, se declarará desierto el recurso…” Lo anterior cumple o no los principios de la misma Ley, en su artículo tercero, que a continuación se transcribe: “Artículo 3°. Principios. Todas las autoridades deberán interpretar y aplicar las disposiciones que regulan las actuaciones y procedimientos administrativos a la luz de los principios consagrados en la Constitución Política, en la Parte Primera de este Código y en las leyes especiales. Las actuaciones administrativas se desarrollarán, especialmente, con arreglo a los principios del debido proceso, igualdad, imparcialidad, buena fe, moralidad, participación, responsabilidad, transparencia, publicidad, coordinación, eficacia, economía y celeridad…” Podemos ver que existe un problema dentro de la misma Ley, ya que inicia en sus cimientos con el principio de eficacia, el cual define en el sentido de que las autoridades buscarán que los procedimientos logren su finalidad y, para el efecto, removerán de oficio los obstáculos puramente formales, evitarán dilaciones o retardos. De otro lado encontramos que el principio de economía que legislador plasmó trae consigo que las autoridades deberán proceder con austeridad y eficiencia, optimizar el uso del tiempo. Lo anterior si lo unimos al principio de celeridad, el cual busca que los procedimientos se adelanten con diligencia, dentro de los términos legales y sin dilaciones injustificadas, encontramos que la conciliación judicial en materia tributaria como requisito primordial para poder admitir una apelación no cumple con los principios aquí referenciados, pues la conciliación es un acuerdo voluntario que una apelación no concibe en esta instancia procesal. Existe también otra situación en materia de conciliación extra judicial, fundamentados en la Ley 1285 del 22 de enero de 2009, por medio de la cual se reformó la Ley 270 de 1996, se estableció, en el artículo 13, que cuando los asuntos que se deban ventilar ante la jurisdicción de lo contencioso administrativo sean conciliables, siempre constituirá requisito de procedibilidad de las acciones a) de nulidad y restablecimiento del derecho, b) de reparación directa y c) de controversias contractuales, el adelantamiento previo del trámite de la conciliación extrajudicial. Dicha instancia extrajudicial, de conformidad con lo regulado por el artículo 23 de la Ley 640 de 2001, es de competencia exclusiva de los agentes del Ministerio Público asignados ante la jurisdicción de lo contencioso administrativo, representados por los Procuradores Delegados ante el Consejo de Estado y por los Procuradores Judiciales para Asuntos Administrativos distribuidos en todo el territorio nacional. Este requisito de procedibilidad debe ser examinado frente a la naturaleza de los actos administrativos propuestos a demandar, ya que si enfocamos nuestra mirada a los actos proferidos por la Dirección de Impuestos Nacionales, nos encontramos con la situación especial de que no son conciliables y aun así se siguen convocando a dichas audiencias operando un caso similar al anterior, que debe ser analizado en la presente monografía.Conciliation as an alternative mechanism for conflict resolution is an excellent tool for decongestion of judicial offices and for the rapprochement of the parties in pursuit of a result that brings peace to the differences between citizens or between them and the State. But just like every tool in a workshop has a valid property and opportunity to use, although they are very effective they are only effective when used correctly, properly and objectively. That is why this monograph seeks to investigate what has been the effectiveness of the Conciliation tool in administrative contentious matters specifically in the area of national taxes, which has prevailed because it has intrinsic non-conciliatory nature by virtue of the norm. We find on one side the judicial conciliations that are authorized by law, which seek to normalize the portfolio and encourage taxpayers to pay their debts to the Nation, allowing the collection to be increased through the establishment of tax benefits or special payment conditions, in In this case we see that judicial conciliation is very positive for the parties because both win. But contrary to the previous situation, we find in Law 1437 of 2011 article 192 the following section:… “When the judgment of first instance is condemnatory and against it the appeal is filed, the Judge or Magistrate must cite conciliation hearing, which must be held before deciding on the granting of the appeal. Attendance at this hearing will be mandatory. If the appellant does not attend the hearing, the appeal will be declared void ... "The foregoing complies or not with the principles of the same Law, in its third article, which is then transcribed:" Article 3. Beginning. All authorities must interpret and apply the provisions that regulate administrative actions and procedures in the light of the principles enshrined in the Political Constitution, in the First Part of this Code and in special laws. The administrative actions will be developed, especially, in accordance with the principles of due process, equality, impartiality, good faith, morality, participation, responsibility, transparency, publicity, coordination, efficiency, economy and speed… ”We can see that there is a problem within of the same Law, since it begins in its foundations with the principle of effectiveness, which defines in the sense that the authorities will seek that the procedures achieve their purpose and, for that purpose, will ex officio remove the purely formal obstacles, avoid delays or delays. On the other hand we find that the principle of economy that the legislator expressed brings with it that the authorities must proceed with austerity and efficiency, optimize the use of time. The above, if we join it to the principle of speed, which seeks that the proceedings be carried out diligently, within the legal terms and without unjustified delays, we find that judicial conciliation in tax matters as a primary Requirement to be able to admit an appeal does not comply with the principles referenced here, because conciliation is a voluntary agreement that an appeal does not conceive in this Procedural instance. There is also another situation regarding extra judicial conciliation, based on Law 1285 of January 22, 2009, by means of which Law 270 of 1996 was amended, it was established, in Article 13, that when matters that are they must ventilate before the jurisdiction of the administrative litigation are reconcilable, it will always be a Requirement of action of the actions a) of nullity and restoration of the right, b) of direct reparation and c) of contractual disputes, the advancement of the process of extrajudicial conciliation. Said extrajudicial instance, in accordance with the provisions of article 23 of Law 640 of 2001, is the exclusive competence of the agents of the Public Prosecutor's Office assigned before the jurisdiction of the administrative litigation, represented by the Procurators Delegated before the Council of State and by the Judicial Attorneys for Administrative Matters distributed throughout the national territory. This Procedural Requirement must be examined against the nature of the administrative acts proposed to be sued, since if we focus our attention on the acts uttered by the National Tax Directorate, we are faced with the special situation that they are not reconcilable and yet These hearings continue to be convened operating a case similar to the previous one, which should be analyzed in this monograph