THE ABUSE OF RIGHTS IN THE ACTION FOR THE PROTECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29076/issn.2528-7737vol17iss44.2024pp224-236pKeywords:
action for protection, effective judicial protection, violation of rights, guarantees, procedural celerity, procedural burdenAbstract
The present research study focuses on the inadequate use of the Action for Protection, distorting its original purpose and generating problems for the operators of justice, which causes a violation of the effective judicial protection, even causing an unnecessary workload and has affected principles such as procedural economy, concentration and celerity. The Action for Protection is designed so that citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated may file this jurisdictional guarantee in the constitutional sphere and based on solid legal arguments. However, this tool has been abused by filing it in an unjustified manner, after exhausting the terms in other instances or even without the existence of violations of the rights recognized in the Constitution and International Instruments, since, by filing more than one simultaneous action for violation of the same right and against the same persons, the abuse of rights is configured, despite the fact that the plaintiff has timely withdrawn the claim and the court has not been made aware of the libel of the same. The objective of the research was framed in analyzing the actions of the entitled parties when filing an action for protection of their violated rights. The methodology used for the research is based on the qualitative and descriptive-theoretical approach.
Key words: action for protection, effective judicial protection, violation of rights, guarantees, procedural celerity, procedural burden.
Downloads
References
Carrasco, D. (2020). LA DEFINICIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL. Quito: CEP.
Castellanos, E. (2020). Aproximación a la metodología de la investigación jurídica. Revista de Facultad de Derecho de Mexico. Obtenido de http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rfdm/article/view/76261
Corte Constitucional. (2014). Sentencia Nº 082-14-SEP-CC. Ecuador.
Corte Constitucional. (2018). Sentencia No. 140-12-SEP-CC. Sentencia No. 140-12-SEP-CC. Quito, Ecuador.
Corte Constitucional. (2019). Sentencia Nº 328-19-EP. Sentencia Nº 328-19-EP. Ecuador.
Corte Constitucional. (2019). Sentencia Nº 992-11-EP-19. Sentencia Nº 992-11-EP-19. Ecuador.
Corte Constitucional. (2023). Sentencia Nº 2231-22-JP/23 . Sentencia Nº 2231-22-JP/23 . Ecuador.
García, D. (2015). LA METODOLOGÍA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN JURÍDICA EN EL SIGLO XXI. Biblioteca jurídica virtual del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas. UNAM. Obtenido de https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/8/3983/24.pdf
Guilherme, L. (2017). Derecho Fundamental a la tutela jurisdiccional efectiva. Lima: Palestra.
Hernández Sampieri, R. (2017). Metodología de la investigación. Mexico: Mc Graw Hill.
Quintana, I. (2020). La acción de protección. Quito: Corporación de estudios y publicaciones.
Resolución No. 177-2010, Juicio Penal No. 180-2010 (Corte Nacional de Justicia 22 de marzo de 2010).
Robert, A. (2017). Teoría de los derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Centro de Estudios.
Sentencia 2231-22-JP/23, CASO 2231-22-JP (Corte Constitucional del Ecuador 07 de junio de 2023).
Sentencia No. 1101-20-EP/22 , CASO Nº. 1101-20-EP (Corte Constitucional del Ecuador 20 de julio de 2022).
Sentencia No. 889-20-JP/21, Derecho al montepío, a la tutela judicial efectiva y juicio de coactiva (Corte Constitucional 10 de marzo de 2021).
Storini, C. (2017). La Accion de Proteccion en Ecuador Realidad Jurídica y Social. Quito: Centro de Estudios y Difusion del Derecho Constitucional.
Zúñiga, E. (2020). Regulación del derecho humano al agua. Revista del, 107.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors can keep the copyright, granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which allow authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in a file open access.
