Analysis of the imposition of fines in case of reluctance to comply with administrative orders in Colombia: The case of sanctions against Uber Colombia
| Autor | Daniel Alejandro Monroy Cely - Angélica Rocío Olave Gutiérrez |
| Cargo | Universidad Externado de Colombia - Universidad Externado de Colombia |
| Páginas | 223-255 |
Monroy, D.; Olave A. Analysis of the imposition of fines
223
Revista Facultad de Jurisprudencia RFJ No.13 Junio 2023
Analysis of the imposition of fines in case
of reluctance to comply with administrative
orders in Colombia: The case of sanctions
against Uber Colombia
Análisis de la imposición de multas en caso
de renuencia de incumplimiento de órdenes
administrativas en Colombia: El caso de las sanciones
contra Uber Colombia
Daniel Alejandro Monroy Cely
Universidad Externado de Colombia
City: Bogotá
Country: Colombia
Angélica Rocío Olave Gutirrez
Universidad Externado de Colombia
City: Bogotá
Country: Colombia
Original Article (Miscellaneous)
RFJ, No. 13, 2023, pp. 223 - 255, ISSN 2588-0837
RESUMEN: El artículo 90 de la Ley 1437 de 2011 prevé un
mecanismo para la ejecución forzada de órdenes administrativas
consistente en la imposición de multas económicas por la
renuencia de un particular a cumplir tales órdenes. Si bien, la
ley colombiana no prevé un procedimiento específico para la
aplicación del artículo, este artículo sugiere que deben cumplirse
cuatro presupuestos: (i) prexistencia de un acto administrativo
definitivo que imponga una obligación no dineraria; (ii)
renuencia del administrado a no cumplir dicha obligación;
(iii) concesión de un plazo razonable para que cumpla con
DOI 10.26807/rfj.vi.462
Monroy, D.; Olave A. Analysis of the imposition of fines
224
Revista Facultad de Jurisprudencia RFJ No.13 Junio 2023
la obligación, y (iv) razonabilidad y proporcionalidad de la
multa a imponer. En Colombia la aplicación de esta norma se
ha dado mayoritariamente en materia urbanística, esto es, en
casos en los cuales se ordena desalojar un predio o demoler
una construcción. Es decir, en estos casos, la administración
impone obligaciones de hacer. Sin embargo, a la fecha se
conoce un único caso en el que la administración ha impuesto
una obligación de no hacer, concretamente contra la empresa
Uber Colombia. Así las cosas, este artículo también analiza el
cumplimiento de los cuatro presupuestos en este caso concreto.
PALABRAS CLAVE: sanciones administrativas, ejecución
forzada de actos administrativos, Uber.
ABSTRACT: Article 90 of Law 1437 of 2011 provides a
mechanism for the forced execution of administrative orders
consisting of the imposition of financial fines for the reluctance
of a private party to comply with such orders. Although
Colombian law does not provide a specific procedure for the
application of the article, this article suggests that four conditions
must be met: (i) preexistence of a final administrative act that
imposes a non-monetary obligation; (ii) reluctance of the person
to not comply with such obligation; (iii) granting of a reasonable
period to comply with the obligation, and (iv) reasonableness
and proportionality of the fine to be imposed. In Colombia, the
application of this rule has occurred mostly in urban planning
matters, that is, in cases in which an order is issued to vacate
the property or demolish a construction. In these cases, the
administration imposes obligations to do. However, to date,
there is only one known case in which the administration has
imposed an obligation not to do, specifically against the company
Uber Colombia. Thus, this article also analyzes the fulfillment of
the four requirements in this specific case.
Monroy, D.; Olave A. Analysis of the imposition of fines
225
Revista Facultad de Jurisprudencia RFJ No.13 Junio 2023
KEYWORDS: administrative sanctions, enforcement of
administrative acts, Uber.
JEL CODE: K23, L62.
INTRODUCTION
In administrative law in general and concerning the
beginning and end of any administrative action, there is a
classic division between administrative procedural acts and
definitive administrative acts. Regarding the latter, Colombian
law, specifically Article 43 of Law 1437 of 2011 (Code of
Administrative Procedure and Administrative Litigation or
CPACA) indicates that definitive [administrative] acts are those
that directly or indirectly decide the merits of the matter or
make it impossible to continue the action.
Regarding this type of administrative action, the
contentious-administrative jurisprudence of the Council of
State (Administrative Chamber. Second Section, Radication
2014-02393. Order of September 14, 2017. C.P. Sandra
Lisset Ibarra Vélez) has stated that they are those that “...are
issued to culminate the administrative proceedings initiated
through the right of petition, ex officio or in compliance with
a legal duty [of the administration]”. Similarly, it has also
been said that these are acts that “...put a peremptory end to
the administrative action, so that in them the activity of the
administration is exhausted, or only the execution of what has
been decided remains pending” (Council of State. Contentious-
Administrative Chamber. Second Section. Radicación 2010-
00011 (0068-10) Ruling of March 8, 2012. C.P. Víctor Hernando
Alvarado Ardila). In this order of ideas, and for this article, it
is important to emphasize that final administrative acts decide,
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba