Suchergebnisse

El incremento de actividades y controversias judiciales en internet ha llamado la atención de académicos, abogados y empresarios acerca de la manera como se determina la jurisdicción debido a las características transnacionales del ciberespacio que riñen con los tradicionales diseños territoriales de las jurisdicciones nacionales. El objetivo del trabajo es establecer los criterios que están siendo usados por las cortes cuando han resuelto casos de internet tanto en sistemas del Common law como del Civil law. Se presenta la literatura y las reglas tradicionales offline que determinan la jurisdicción tradicional y se presentan casos seleccionados en el derecho internacional, los Estados Unidos, Europa y Colombia en un intento por establecer la manera como se está asignado la jurisdicción en internet. El método es cualitativo e inductivo, se usan fuentes primarias y secundarias y técnicas de revisión documental y observación directa. Los hallazgos señalan que las diferencias entre el Common law y el Civil law desaparecen cuando emergen nuevas reglas online para establecer la jurisdicción en internet; de otro lado, se constata un uso alternativo tanto de reglas online y de reglas offline, especialmente en USA y Europa; las controversias internacionales sugieren que las cortes han aplicado reglas tradicionales más que reglas online; finalmente, los casos colombianos muestran que la Corte Suprema de Justicia está aplicando un conjunto de criterios offline

El presente artículo de investigación tiene como fin delimitar los presupuestos procesales de las controversias que se adelantan ante el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones. En este sentido, en primera instancia se explicará el concepto de presupuesto procesal, el cual adquiere un contenido especial en los conflictos de inversión. Posteriormente, se analizarán los presupuestos de manera puntual, como lo son la jurisdicción y competencia y, a partir de estos, la capacidad para ser parte, el consentimiento y la disputa legal relativa a inversiones. Finalmente, se señalarán unas breves conclusiones.

El presente texto tiene como objetivo demostrar las contradicciones, vacíos y ambigüedades que convergen en el punto del sistema de justicia del acuerdo de paz firmado entre el gobierno de Colombia y las FARC EP. Se hará una exposición descriptiva analítica de las disposiciones que regulan la competencia de la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz, contenidas en el Acuerdo Final, el Acto Legislativo 01 de 2017, la Ley estatutaria que reglamenta el mismo y los pronunciamientos previos de la Corte Constitucional. Se iniciará abordando problemáticas sustanciales en tres ámbitos de competencia: Temporal, material y personal, luego las dificultades procesales, donde se podrán notar las diferencias entre lo acordado, lo implementado y lo establecido por la Corte Constitucional. ; The present text aims to demonstrate the contradictions, gaps and ambiguities that converge in the point of the justice system of the peace agreement signed between the government of Colombia and the FARC EP. There will be a descriptive analytical description of the provisions that regulate the competence of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, contained in the Final Agreement, Legislative Act 01 of 2017, the Statutory Law that regulates the same and the previous pronouncements of the Constitutional Court. It will begin by addressing substantial issues in three areas of competence: Temporary, material and personal, then the procedural difficulties, where you can notice the differences between what was agreed, implemented and established by the Constitutional Court. ; Magíster en Derecho ; Maestría

El art. 2.a) del Texto Refundido de la Ley de Procedimiento Laboral, Real Decreto Legislativo 2/1995, de 7 de abril dispone que «los órganos jurisdiccionales del orden social conocerán de las cuestiones litigiosas que se promuevan entre empresarios y trabajadores como consecuencia del contrato de trabajo»; ello nos lleva, sin duda, al concepto de contrato de trabajo, que aparece in fine, en el art. 3.1,c) del Estatuto de los Trabajadores, Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1995, de 24 de marzo, como una de las fuentes del derecho laboral, expresión de la voluntad de las partes, siempre de objeto lícito y que no imponga, en perjuicio del trabajador, condiciones menos favorables que las que prescriben los convenios colectivos y las disposiciones legales.

La presente investigación, sobre "LA COMPETENCIA Y JURISDICCIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL DE CUENTAS, EN SU PAPEL CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN", tiene como objetivo divulgar la evolución histórica, desde las Constituciones políticas, las leyes, que han regulado con el objetivo de sancionar a los funcionarios públicos, como a los particulares, que cometen irregularidades al sustraer fondos del erario público, bienes muebles e inmuebles, equipos, maquinarias y otros servicios de propiedad del Estado.
Iniciando desde la época Colonial, después "El Estado Federal de Panamá, de 27 de febrero de 1855", hasta las Constituciones políticas de 1904 y 1972. De igual forma analizamos al Tribunal de Cuentas, a la Fiscalía General de Cuentas, con las facultades que le otorga la Ley 67 de 2008, de 14 de noviembre de 2008. Que desarrolla la Jurisdicción de Cuentas, como la Competencia para combatir la Corrupción.
Finalizamos con una recopilación de jurisprudencia, sobre la Competencia y Jurisdicción del Tribunal de Cuentas, de la Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Laboral, de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.

Both the US and the EU are systems in which the law on international jurisdiction in civil matters shows a certain degree of uniformity against a background of different state legislations in that field. There are substantial differences between the EU and the US concerning the means used to create uniform standards or rules on jurisdiction and the scope of uniform law. Personal jurisdiction in the US is considered a constitutional issue and the key factor of uniformity is the case-law of the US Supreme Court concerning the limits imposed by the constitutional due process clause on state legislation. Those standards are mandatory to federal and state courts and they apply both to purely international cases and to US interstate cases. Moreover, they apply regardless of the nationality and domicile of the parties, even if those factors are not located in the US. However, the standards developed by the Supreme Court on personal jurisdiction are vague and the application of those standards by state courts has proven a source of uncertainty and complex litigation in many cases. There are almost no federal rules on personal jurisdiction and the long-arm statues enacted by most States are intended to reach the limits of due process and therefore they do not provide further legal certainty. In contrast with that approach, the EU has focused on uniformization by means of the enactment of common rules on jurisdiction which contribute to the mutual recognition of judgments between Member States and become a key factor to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve further integration in the EU. This approach is based on rules which set out common grounds of jurisdiction that must be applied in a uniform way in all Member States in order to provide a high level of legal certainty. To achieve that goal the ECJ case-law interpreting the unified rules plays an essential role. Legal certainty is a key objective of the unified rules on jurisdiction as a consequence of the role assigned to those rules in the integration process. The EU approach to international jurisdiction based on comprehensive legislative rules has advantages when compared with the US situation especially in the context of legal integration, as American scholars have acknowledged. However, the further development of the EU model should improve some of its features which are neither positive nor necessary to achieve the goals assigned to the uniform jurisdictional rules in the integration process. The development of common standards on procedural fairness in the EU should require the revision of some discriminatory aspects. Especially the application of the exorbitant fora established in the legislations of some Member States (Annex I Regulation 44/2001) to persons not domiciled in the EU and the prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin in the recognition of judgments should be reviewed. Moreover, the coexistence in the EU model of uniform rules of universal scope (such as Regulation 44/2001 and 2201/2003) with national rules which only are applied by reference of the uniform rules (art. 4 Regulation 44/2001 and art. 14 Regulation 2201/2003 concerning residual jurisdiction) is a factor of additional complexity, which could be overcome if the uniform rules were to be applied to all situations, removing totally national rules in the unified areas. That development would be in accordance with the nature of the EU Regulations in this field –especially Regulation 44/2001- as a unified and coherent system of rules on jurisdiction, as acknowledged by the ECJ in his Opinion 1/03 of February 7 2006 in order to establish that the conclusion of international agreements on jurisdiction in the areas covered by the regulations falls entirely within the exclusive competence of the EC. --- Análisis comparativo del régimen de competencia judicial internacional en EEUU y la UE, valorando el alcance de la unificación de las normas reguladoras en el contexto de la progresiva comunitarización de este sector del DIPr. El trabajo incluye pautas sobre las líneas de evolución futura de la regulación comunitaria.

Both the US and the EU are systems in which the law on international jurisdiction in civil matters shows a certain degree of uniformity against a background of different state legislations in that field. There are substantial differences between the EU and the US concerning the means used to create uniform standards or rules on jurisdiction and the scope of uniform law. Personal jurisdiction in the US is considered a constitutional issue and the key factor of uniformity is the case-law of the US Supreme Court concerning the limits imposed by the constitutional due process clause on state legislation. Those standards are mandatory to federal and state courts and they apply both to purely international cases and to US interstate cases. Moreover, they apply regardless of the nationality and domicile of the parties, even if those factors are not located in the US. However, the standards developed by the Supreme Court on personal jurisdiction are vague and the application of those standards by state courts has proven a source of uncertainty and complex litigation in many cases. There are almost no federal rules on personal jurisdiction and the long-arm statues enacted by most States are intended to reach the limits of due process and therefore they do not provide further legal certainty. In contrast with that approach, the EU has focused on uniformization by means of the enactment of common rules on jurisdiction which contribute to the mutual recognition of judgments between Member States and become a key factor to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve further integration in the EU. This approach is based on rules which set out common grounds of jurisdiction that must be applied in a uniform way in all Member States in order to provide a high level of legal certainty. To achieve that goal the ECJ case-law interpreting the unified rules plays an essential role. Legal certainty is a key objective of the unified rules on jurisdiction as a consequence of the role assigned to those rules in the integration process. The EU approach to international jurisdiction based on comprehensive legislative rules has advantages when compared with the US situation especially in the context of legal integration, as American scholars have acknowledged. However, the further development of the EU model should improve some of its features which are neither positive nor necessary to achieve the goals assigned to the uniform jurisdictional rules in the integration process. The development of common standards on procedural fairness in the EU should require the revision of some discriminatory aspects. Especially the application of the exorbitant fora established in the legislations of some Member States (Annex I Regulation 44/2001) to persons not domiciled in the EU and the prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin in the recognition of judgments should be reviewed. Moreover, the coexistence in the EU model of uniform rules of universal scope (such as Regulation 44/2001 and 2201/2003) with national rules which only are applied by reference of the uniform rules (art. 4 Regulation 44/2001 and art. 14 Regulation 2201/2003 concerning residual jurisdiction) is a factor of additional complexity, which could be overcome if the uniform rules were to be applied to all situations, removing totally national rules in the unified areas. That development would be in accordance with the nature of the EU Regulations in this field –especially Regulation 44/2001- as a unified and coherent system of rules on jurisdiction, as acknowledged by the ECJ in his Opinion 1/03 of February 7 2006 in order to establish that the conclusion of international agreements on jurisdiction in the areas covered by the regulations falls entirely within the exclusive competence of the EC. --- Análisis comparativo del régimen de competencia judicial internacional en EEUU y la UE, valorando el alcance de la unificación de las normas reguladoras en el contexto de la progresiva comunitarización de este sector del DIPr. El trabajo incluye pautas sobre las líneas de evolución futura de la regulación comunitaria.

Both the US and the EU are systems in which the law on international jurisdiction in civil matters shows a certain degree of uniformity against a background of different state legislations in that field. There are substantial differences between the EU and the US concerning the means used to create uniform standards or rules on jurisdiction and the scope of uniform law. Personal jurisdiction in the US is considered a constitutional issue and the key factor of uniformity is the case-law of the US Supreme Court concerning the limits imposed by the constitutional due process clause on state legislation. Those standards are mandatory to federal and state courts and they apply both to purely international cases and to US interstate cases. Moreover, they apply regardless of the nationality and domicile of the parties, even if those factors are not located in the US. However, the standards developed by the Supreme Court on personal jurisdiction are vague and the application of those standards by state courts has proven a source of uncertainty and complex litigation in many cases. There are almost no federal rules on personal jurisdiction and the long-arm statues enacted by most States are intended to reach the limits of due process and therefore they do not provide further legal certainty. In contrast with that approach, the EU has focused on uniformization by means of the enactment of common rules on jurisdiction which contribute to the mutual recognition of judgments between Member States and become a key factor to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve further integration in the EU. This approach is based on rules which set out common grounds of jurisdiction that must be applied in a uniform way in all Member States in order to provide a high level of legal certainty. To achieve that goal the ECJ case-law interpreting the unified rules plays an essential role. Legal certainty is a key objective of the unified rules on jurisdiction as a consequence of the role assigned to those rules in the integration process. The EU approach to international jurisdiction based on comprehensive legislative rules has advantages when compared with the US situation especially in the context of legal integration, as American scholars have acknowledged. However, the further development of the EU model should improve some of its features which are neither positive nor necessary to achieve the goals assigned to the uniform jurisdictional rules in the integration process. The development of common standards on procedural fairness in the EU should require the revision of some discriminatory aspects. Especially the application of the exorbitant fora established in the legislations of some Member States (Annex I Regulation 44/2001) to persons not domiciled in the EU and the prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin in the recognition of judgments should be reviewed. Moreover, the coexistence in the EU model of uniform rules of universal scope (such as Regulation 44/2001 and 2201/2003) with national rules which only are applied by reference of the uniform rules (art. 4 Regulation 44/2001 and art. 14 Regulation 2201/2003 concerning residual jurisdiction) is a factor of additional complexity, which could be overcome if the uniform rules were to be applied to all situations, removing totally national rules in the unified areas. That development would be in accordance with the nature of the EU Regulations in this field –especially Regulation 44/2001- as a unified and coherent system of rules on jurisdiction, as acknowledged by the ECJ in his Opinion 1/03 of February 7 2006 in order to establish that the conclusion of international agreements on jurisdiction in the areas covered by the regulations falls entirely within the exclusive competence of the EC. --- Análisis comparativo del régimen de competencia judicial internacional en EEUU y la UE, valorando el alcance de la unificación de las normas reguladoras en el contexto de la progresiva comunitarización de este sector del DIPr. El trabajo incluye pautas sobre las líneas de evolución futura de la regulación comunitaria.

The present investigation, about "THE COMPETENCEAND JURISDICTION, OF COURT AUDITORS IN THEIR ROLE AGAINST CORRUPTION", has as objective to disclosed and bringthe historical evolution, from the Political Constitution, laws, that have regulated with the objective of penalize public officials or private individuals, committing irregularities by taking funds away from the public treasure, moveable and immoveable assets, equipment, devices and other services propriety of the State. Beginning from the Colonial Age, after "The federal state of Panama", February 27 of1855", till the political Constitution of 1904 and 1972. The same way we analyze the Court Auditors, to the Public Prosecutor of General Accounts, with the faculties conferred upon the Law 67 of 2008, November 14 of 2008. That develop the, Court Auditors Jurisdiction, with the competence to combat against corruption. Ending up with the recompilation of jurisprudence, about the Competenceand Jurisdiction of the Court Auditors, from the Third Chambered of Contentious-Administrative and Labor matter, of the Supreme Court of Justice ; La presente investigación, sobre "LA COMPETENCIA Y JURISDICCIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL DE CUENTAS, EN SU PAPEL CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN", tiene como objetivo divulgar la evolución histórica, desde las Constituciones políticas, las leyes, que han regulado con el objetivo de sancionar a los funcionarios públicos, como a los particulares, que cometen irregularidades al sustraer fondos del erario público, bienes muebles e inmuebles, equipos, maquinarias y otros servicios de propiedad del Estado. Iniciando desde la época Colonial, después "El Estado Federal de Panamá, de 27 de febrero de 1855", hasta las Constituciones políticas de 1904 y 1972. De igual forma analizamos al Tribunal de Cuentas, a la Fiscalía General de Cuentas, con las facultades que le otorga la Ley 67 de 2008, de 14 de noviembre de 2008. Que desarrolla la Jurisdicción de Cuentas, como la Competencia para combatir la Corrupción. Finalizamos con una recopilación de jurisprudencia, sobre la Competencia y Jurisdicción del Tribunal de Cuentas, de la Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Laboral, de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.

Both the US and the EU are systems in which the law on international jurisdiction in civil matters shows a certain degree of uniformity against a background of different state legislations in that field. There are substantial differences between the EU and the US concerning the means used to create uniform standards or rules on jurisdiction and the scope of uniform law. Personal jurisdiction in the US is considered a constitutional issue and the key factor of uniformity is the case-law of the US Supreme Court concerning the limits imposed by the constitutional due process clause on state legislation. Those standards are mandatory to federal and state courts and they apply both to purely international cases and to US interstate cases. Moreover, they apply regardless of the nationality and domicile of the parties, even if those factors are not located in the US. However, the standards developed by the Supreme Court on personal jurisdiction are vague and the application of those standards by state courts has proven a source of uncertainty and complex litigation in many cases. There are almost no federal rules on personal jurisdiction and the long-arm statues enacted by most States are intended to reach the limits of due process and therefore they do not provide further legal certainty. In contrast with that approach, the EU has focused on uniformization by means of the enactment of common rules on jurisdiction which contribute to the mutual recognition of judgments between Member States and become a key factor to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market and to achieve further integration in the EU. This approach is based on rules which set out common grounds of jurisdiction that must be applied in a uniform way in all Member States in order to provide a high level of legal certainty. To achieve that goal the ECJ case-law interpreting the unified rules plays an essential role. Legal certainty is a key objective of the unified rules on jurisdiction as a consequence of the role assigned to those rules ...

Tema sumamente delicado y preocupante es el relativo a la Jurisdicción Militar, y que ahora está relacionado con el título de la presente tesis Conflictos de competencia entre el Poder Judicial y la Jurisdicción Militar en el contexto constitucional. Y se presenta más arduo todavía si se toma en cuenta que su tratamiento académico ha sido descuidado en los ámbitos constitucional y legal. Y qué decir cuando se ve que el poder político, a través de la línea evolutiva histórica –en especial, el Poder Ejecutivo– ha sido el que ha impuesto las reglas de juego para el desarrollo y aplicación de la Jurisdicción Militar, resultando muchas veces excesivas las decisiones que, en un momento determinado, expidieron los Tribunales Militares, precisamente integrados por jueces reclutados por el propio Poder Ejecutivo, desconociéndose a los demás aparatos estatales. La historia nos enseña que la función política de las Fuerzas Armadas ha sido un fenómeno persistente en América Latina, y en el caso peruano se deja notar esta dura realidad, lo cual ha permitido que se lleven a cabo permanentes oscilaciones de la autoridad civil que trajo como producto la ruptura de los diques de la democracia, por parte de las camarillas políticas, de casta y elitista, con el propósito de controlar el poder social y político. Frente a esto surge la siguiente interrogante: ¿Estado Constitucional o Estado Militar? La respuesta se podrá apreciar a lo largo del presente estudio. ; Tesis

Tema sumamente delicado y preocupante es el relativo a la Jurisdicción Militar, y que ahora está relacionado con el título de la presente tesis Conflictos de competencia entre el Poder Judicial y la Jurisdicción Militar en el contexto constitucional. Y se presenta más arduo todavía si se toma en cuenta que su tratamiento académico ha sido descuidado en los ámbitos constitucional y legal. Y qué decir cuando se ve que el poder político, a través de la línea evolutiva histórica –en especial, el Poder Ejecutivo– ha sido el que ha impuesto las reglas de juego para el desarrollo y aplicación de la Jurisdicción Militar, resultando muchas veces excesivas las decisiones que, en un momento determinado, expidieron los Tribunales Militares, precisamente integrados por jueces reclutados por el propio Poder Ejecutivo, desconociéndose a los demás aparatos estatales. La historia nos enseña que la función política de las Fuerzas Armadas ha sido un fenómeno persistente en América Latina, y en el caso peruano se deja notar esta dura realidad, lo cual ha permitido que se lleven a cabo permanentes oscilaciones de la autoridad civil que trajo como producto la ruptura de los diques de la democracia, por parte de las camarillas políticas, de casta y elitista, con el propósito de controlar el poder social y político. Frente a esto surge la siguiente interrogante: ¿Estado Constitucional o Estado Militar? La respuesta se podrá apreciar a lo largo del presente estudio. ; Tesis

En el presente trabajo se realiza un análisis crítico a la jurisprudencia del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura que resuelve los conflictos de jurisdicción entre la Unidad de Derechos Humanos de la Fiscalía General de la Nación y la Justicia Penal Militar La línea jurisprudencial observada, encuentra en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional un "antes" y un "después" que permite afirmar la tendencia cada vez más garantista de la jurisprudencia analizada. Sin embargo, es bastante clara la constatación según la cual, cuando se trata de investigaciones en las que se encuentran involucrados oficiales de alto rango, la tendencia sigue siendo atribuirle la competencia a la jurisdicción castrense, cualquiera sea la naturaleza del delito o el vínculo con el servicio. Esto pone de manifiesto la existencia de un asunto que va más allá de lo estrictamente jurídico y argumentativo.

En el presente trabajo se realiza un análisis crítico a la jurisprudencia del Consejo Superior de la Judicatura que resuelve los conflictos de jurisdicción entre la Unidad de Derechos Humanos de la Fiscalía General de la Nación y la Justicia Penal Militar La línea jurisprudencial observada, encuentra en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional un "antes" y un "después" que permite afirmar la tendencia cada vez más garantista de la jurisprudencia analizada. Sin embargo, es bastante clara la constatación según la cual, cuando se trata de investigaciones en las que se encuentran involucrados oficiales de alto rango, la tendencia sigue siendo atribuirle la competencia a la jurisdicción castrense, cualquiera sea la naturaleza del delito o el vínculo con el servicio. Esto pone de manifiesto la existencia de un asunto que va más allá de lo estrictamente jurídico y argumentativo.