Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

dialnet-ar-18-ART0000827770

dialnet

Dialnet

Dialnet AR

Misión Jurídica: Revista de derecho y ciencias sociales, ISSN 1794-600X, Vol. 7, Nº. 7, 2014, pags. 101-118

Spanish

Derechos Humanos
Procedimiento Administrativo
Morosidad Administrativa
Human Rights
Administrative Procedure
Government Bureaucratic Delays
Direitos humanos
processo administrativo
inadimplência administrativa

Derechos Humanos
Procedimiento Administrativo
Morosidad Administrativa
Human Rights
Administrative Procedure
Government Bureaucratic Delays
Direitos humanos
processo administrativo
inadimplência administrativa
Damsky, Isaac Augusto
Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

This article shows a double insufficiency of the methods to counteract administrative delays3 and, therefore, to process requests in a timely fashion. These methods were foreseen 40 years ago as established in the Administrative Procedure Act. In the first place, this insufficiency is caused by a contradictory legal system which, on the one hand, clearly states the obligation on the government agencies’ part to process a request, whereas, on the other, it has always accepted administrative delays. By recognizing the rights of individuals to consider administrative delays as a denial of the parties’ requests, the legal system not only does not prohibit the government agencies’ lack of processing such requests but also allows not to process them accordingly, something which is known as a “administrative denial ” 4 . This legal barrier contravenes the provisions set forth in the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in terms of the rights and guarantees established in its Articles 8 and 25, as presented in this article which the author provides as the basis for a new legitimacy. Secondly, this is caused by the fact that the system foreseen forty years ago is obsolete. On the one hand, the sole actual legal mechanism to make the government agencies process a request in a timely manner is the judicial process, which is currently deligitimized precisely as a consequence of its protracted nature. The system requests the courts to do something the judges are no longer capable of achieving: to decide upon a case in a reasonable time. On the other hand, nowadays, should the administrative process be modernized through IT tools¯as was actually performed in the tax and customs administration¯, the speed of proceedings would be significantly faster and the amount of court proceedings, considerably smaller. Therefore, the author hereby introduces the recent case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning the interpretation of the rights and guarantees set forth in the Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention of Human Rights, which have a direct application in the Argentine domestic legislation as expressly provided by the Constitution, so far as to question the current legal system and, at the same time, to imply that the new supranational legal system of human rights has forbidden further tolerance from a legal viewpoint of the administrative delays.

Article

Damsky, Isaac Augusto

Damsky, Isaac Augusto

Damsky, Isaac Augusto

Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidad

2014

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5167611

1709716569586663424

dialnet-ar-18-ART00008277702019-07-19Derechos humanos y mecanismos de interdicción de la morosidad administrativa: una nueva legitimidadDamsky, Isaac AugustoDerechos HumanosProcedimiento AdministrativoMorosidad AdministrativaHuman RightsAdministrative ProcedureGovernment Bureaucratic DelaysDireitos humanosprocesso administrativoinadimplência administrativaThis article shows a double insufficiency of the methods to counteract administrative delays3 and, therefore, to process requests in a timely fashion. These methods were foreseen 40 years ago as established in the Administrative Procedure Act. In the first place, this insufficiency is caused by a contradictory legal system which, on the one hand, clearly states the obligation on the government agencies’ part to process a request, whereas, on the other, it has always accepted administrative delays. By recognizing the rights of individuals to consider administrative delays as a denial of the parties’ requests, the legal system not only does not prohibit the government agencies’ lack of processing such requests but also allows not to process them accordingly, something which is known as a “administrative denial ” 4 . This legal barrier contravenes the provisions set forth in the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in terms of the rights and guarantees established in its Articles 8 and 25, as presented in this article which the author provides as the basis for a new legitimacy. Secondly, this is caused by the fact that the system foreseen forty years ago is obsolete. On the one hand, the sole actual legal mechanism to make the government agencies process a request in a timely manner is the judicial process, which is currently deligitimized precisely as a consequence of its protracted nature. The system requests the courts to do something the judges are no longer capable of achieving: to decide upon a case in a reasonable time. On the other hand, nowadays, should the administrative process be modernized through IT tools¯as was actually performed in the tax and customs administration¯, the speed of proceedings would be significantly faster and the amount of court proceedings, considerably smaller. Therefore, the author hereby introduces the recent case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning the interpretation of the rights and guarantees set forth in the Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention of Human Rights, which have a direct application in the Argentine domestic legislation as expressly provided by the Constitution, so far as to question the current legal system and, at the same time, to imply that the new supranational legal system of human rights has forbidden further tolerance from a legal viewpoint of the administrative delays.O artigo apresenta a dupla falha de mecanismos – feitos há 40 anos - para combater a inadimplência administrativa e alcançar a decisão administrativa em prazo razoável, contida na lei de procedimentos administrativos. Primeiro, porque o sistema jurídico é contraditório: por um lado, estabelece a obrigação da determinação da administração, mas por outro lado, sempre, tolera a inadimplência administrativa para reconhecer o direito dos indivíduos qualificar a mora da administração como uma negação dos pedidos de indivíduos (o “ficta recusa”). Este incentivo legal negativo contradiz as racionalidades da jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de Direitos humanos, das “Garantias judiciais” das cláusulas 8 ° e 25, que o autor propõe como base para uma nova legitimidade. Segundo, porque o sistema é obsoleto: por um lado, o único mecanismo concreto da lei, para garantir que a administração pública resolva em tempo real, é o processo judicial que está, hoje, deslegitimado. Por outro lado, se modernizando o procedimento administrativo, usando as ferramentas de tecnologia da informação (TI) - como fez na administração tributária e aduaneira – os tempos de processamento poderiam ser muito reduzidos, assím como o processo judicial. O autor apresenta a recente jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de direitos humanos sobre a interpretação do direito de garantias contidas nas cláusulas 8 e 25 da Convenção Americana, que são de aplicação directa na ordem interna por expressa previsão constitucional, para questionar o atual sistema jurídico e, ao mesmo tempo, sugerir que - mesmo sem uma modificação da lei- a nova agenda supranacional dos direitos humanos tem suprimida a tolerância legal para a inadimplência administrativa.El trabajo presenta la doble insuficiencia de los mecanismos –previstos 40 años atrás- para combatir la morosidad administrativa1 y lograr el pronunciamiento administrativo en tiempo razonable, contenidos en ley de procedimientos administrativos. Primero, porque el sistema legal es contradictorio: por un lado establece la obligación de la administración de resolver pero por el otro, desde siempre, tolera la morosidad administrativa al reconocer el derecho de los particulares de calificar a la mora de la administración como una denegación de las peticiones de los particulares (la “denegatoria ficta”2). Este incentivo legal negativo contradice las racionalidades de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en materia del “derecho a las garantías” de las cláusulas 8° y 25, y que el autor propone como base de una nueva legitimidad. Segundo, porque el sistema es obsoleto: Por un lado, el único mecanismo concreto de la ley, para lograr que la Administración Pública resuelva en tiempo real, es el proceso judicial que se encuentra hoy deslegitimado. Por otra parte si se modernizara el procedimiento administrativo, mediante las herramientas de la Tecnología de la Información (IT) –como sí se hizo en la administración impositiva y aduanera- los tiempos de tramitación se acortarían notablemente y se reduciría la judicialización.El autor presenta la jurisprudencia reciente de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre la interpretación del derecho a las garantías contenido en las cláusulas 8° y 25 de la Convención Americana, que son de aplicación directa en el orden interno por expresa previsión constitucional, para cuestionar el actual sistema legal y al mismo tiempo sugerir que –aún sin modificación de la ley- el nuevo orden supranacional de los derechos humanos ha suprimido la tolerancia legal a la morosidad administrativa.2014text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5167611(Revista) ISSN 1794-600XMisión Jurídica: Revista de derecho y ciencias sociales, ISSN 1794-600X, Vol. 7, Nº. 7, 2014, pags. 101-118spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI