Impartiality and evidence for the best solution in the General Organic Code of Processes.
Special reference to the Ecuadorian tax judicial proceedings
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
HTML (Español (España))
The author (or authors) of the article titled: ________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________, which is submitted to the editorial process, certifies and authorizes the following considerations:
- I certify that I am a primary author of the article presented for possible publication. I guarantee that the entire content is a product of my intellectual contribution. All information and references to any material already published are correctly attributed and included in the references and citations. In cases when it is required, I have obtained the necessary permissions from those who possess the property rights.
- The article has not been published nor submitted simultaneously to any other serial publication for editorial consideration.
- I certify that all the references and cites in the article are cited according to the journal’s guidelines.
- I authorize the journal to evaluate and ask for external evaluation (peer reviewers).
- I guarantee that all the materials presented are entirely free of copyright. I am responsible for any lawsuit or any complaint related to intellectual property rights. I release Surcolombiana University of any charge.
- I authorize the journal to send emails to solve any situation presented during the editorial process.
- In the case that the article is approved for publication, as author and owner of the copyright, I transfer the rights to the journal unlimited time to include the manuscript in the Piélagus Journal. The text can be reproduced, edited, exhibited, and circulated in the country and abroad. That process can be through print, electronic publication, CD ROM, internet, full text or any other means known or to be known.
By completing the following, I confirm the previous to be true and agree to the aforementioned terms on __________ (month) the ____ (day), 20__ in ___city____, (____Country__).
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Would the discretionary faculty granted to judges to introduce and to appraise means of evidence not contributed by parts to the process affect impartiality? In theory, the more assertive answer would be positive. In practice, the affectation level is possible depending on multiple variables. Among them, this article is interested on highlighting two questions: i) the purpose of the evidence in general and of the evidence for the best solution in particular; ii) the process or specific procedure for evidence to be introduced and categorized. In Ecuador, the two variables are foreseen in the COGEP, and from its regulation, it is briefly examined some causes for which, the evidence for best solution in the contentious tributary procedure would lead to frequent ruptures of the principle of impartiality.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
I. Benalcázar-Guerrón, J. C. (2016). El proceso contencioso administrativo en el Código Orgánico General de Procesos (COGEP). Ius Humani. Revista de Derecho Vol. 5, pp. 273-290.
II. Botto, H. (s.f.). Las medidas para mejor resolver en el proceso civil chileno son inconstitucionales. Academia Virtual Iberoamericana de Derecho, Biblioteca Derecho Procesal, Chile.
III. Calamandrei, P. (1973). Estudios sobre el proceso civil. Buenos Aires: EJEA.
IV. COGEP. Código Orgánico General de Procesos. Registro Oficial de 22/05/2015. Constitución de la República del Ecuador, 2008.
V. CPCCh. Código de Procedimiento Civil vigente en Chile.
VI. CPCUr. Código de procedimiento Civil vigente en Uruguay.
VII. Gaitán-Guerrero, L. A. (2010). “La prueba de oficio en el proceso civil: ¿imparcialidad del juez e igualdad de las partes?” Revista de Derecho Privado No. 43, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, pp. 3- 22.
VIII. Landoni-Sosa, A. (2017). “Constitución, proceso e ideología” publicado en el libro Estudios de Derecho Procesal, en Homenaje a Eduardo J. Couture, TOMO I “La Prueba en el Proceso”, Editorial La Ley Uruguay.
IX. Montesquieu, C. (1748). El espíritu de las leyes.
X. Prada-Errecart, A. (2016). “Algunas reflexiones sobre las medidas para mejor proveer.” Diario Civil y Obligaciones, No. 80.
XI. Taruffo, M. (2006). Poderes probatorios de las partes y del juez en Europa. DOXA, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 249-271.
XII. Taruffo, M. (2010). Simplemente la verdad. El juez y la construcción de los hechos. Marcial Pons, Madrid-Barcelona-Buenos Aires.
XIII. Wróblewski, J. (1989). Sentido y hecho en el derecho. País Vasco: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco.
REFERENCIAS COMPLEMENTARIAS
XIV. Bonet-Navarro, J. (2009). Algunos problemas concretos sobre aspectos generales de la prueba en el proceso civil. Diario la Ley, España, 6 de octubre, p. 5.
XV. De Souza, A. C. (2012). La parcialidad positiva del juez: fundamento ético material del código modelo iberoamericano. Universitas. Revista de Filosofía, Derecho y Política, No.16, pp. 157-181.
XVI. Devis-Echandía, H. (2000). Compendio de la prueba judicial (dos tomos). Anotados y concordados por Adolfo Alvarado Velloso, Rubinzal-Culzoni Editores, Buenos Aires.
XVII. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviatán o la forma, materia y poder de una república eclesiástica y civil.
XVIII. Lara-Chagoyán, R. (2011). Motivación de los hechos: reflexiones sobre las diligencias para mejor proveer. Isonomía No. 35.
XIX. Ost, François (1993). Júpiter, Hércules, Hermes: tres modelos de juez. Doxa, No. 14, Universidad de Alicante, pp. 169- 194.
