Examinando por Materia "CONFLICTO ARMADO - ASPECTOS JURÍDICOS - COLOMBIA"

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    Ítem
    Teoría del Riesgo Conflicto en la jurisprudencia del Consejo de Estado y comentarios a su aplicación en la Sentencia del 25 de mayo de 2017 del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de la Guajira
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2018) Montoya Vélez, Juliana; Giraldo Ospina, Simón
    On 2014, the Juzgado Segundo Administrativo Oral del Circuito de Riohacha declared company PROMIGAS S.A. E.S.P. responsible, along with the Mine and Energy Ministry, for the damages caused to a group of citizens by the terrorist action perpetrated by FARC group, in which the gas pipeline named Ballenas-Barranquilla was exploded on October 2001 -- The court decision was founded on the fact that the two defendants were responsable under the accusation known as “riesgo-conflicto” (conflict risk), a form of exceptional risk -- However , imputation grounded on the fact that, at the judge consideration, PROMIGAS benefited from the gas transportation, mixing the two imputation titles (conflict risk and benefit risk) that belong to the exceptional risk -- That undue motivation, and vagueness on the due differentiation of the risks developed by the Consejo de Estado jurisprudence, led to PROMIGAS to appeal the court decision to a higher instance, in this case the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de la Guajira, who fall into the same mistakes tan the A-Quo, leading to ignore the status of the defendants, that is them being public or private entities, which will lead to responsibility exemptions that could be applied in the court process -- With the present article, it was intended to determine the application sphere, along with the passive subjects of the imputation title known as conflict risk, to determine if it was the specific one to apply in the case, and if the court´s decision was taken based on the jurisprudence of the Consejo de on the matter -- It was concluded, that the decisions made on both instances, were grounded on a wrong imputation tiles, and therefore it wasn´t PROMIGAS the one to repair the damages suffered by the victims of the terrorist attack