Who writes the "doctrines" of failures in Microjuris? Receipt holders
jurisprudential review Microjuris.cl and striking me failure "Controlled Parking Services SA c / Municipality of Melipilla" Court of San Miguel (
Role No. 323 - 2010), went to the field of contracts. According to the extract,
" Municipalities do not have administrative powers to nullify unilaterally , The concession contracts signed with private companies. While the termination of a concession is a condition characteristic of administrative contracts, it can not be realized exclusively by the mere will of the council, but must adhere strictly to the grounds for termination mentioned in the same concession of public good ". It seems we're back in the 80's, when part of the doctrine began to ignore the specific nature of the administrative contract, in both management tool for public affairs, usually entails for the Contracting Authority exceptional means of action , as the powers of modification or termination of employment contracts in progress. If the decision denies the municipal powers of unilateral action, is the administrative contract is then a common contract and wild? Best
review the direct source. The ruling says the very opposite of the extract before recorded. Quote:
"That the terms stated above is that the allocation Township unilateral termination of the concession granted to the appellant, is not unlimited, but in the cases expressly provided even though they are ranked by the same authority City, which is a so-called clauses are immersed in exorbitant administrative contracts reflected the public interest to guide its execution, interpretation and implementation, altering the principle of equality that ordinarily governs the conventions subscribed to by individuals and which are subject to common law, to empower the authority municipal administrative and unilaterally to resolve the concession on the basis of its own rating of the severity of the failure of the concessionaire's obligations alleged against it. (HE CS Role No. 4919-2001) " (cons. 9 °).
Far from asserting that the municipalities "have no powers to nullify contracts of concession," Case admits that they have the power to unilaterally terminate them, indeed, the ruling fits in with the traditional doctrine of administrative, indicating that the unilateral termination of contract "is a so-called exorbitant clauses are embedded in administrative contracts ".
If there are nuances, they refer only to this power is "not unlimited", but is conditioned by the presence of some typical events that justify its use. Specifically, in this case, the Court finds that the parties "referred further limited the award of the Municipality of unilateral termination to grant "(*) to define specific cases in which unilateral termination operate. The Court understands that the city overstepped Melipilla the exercise of its powers to unilaterally extend the term of the contract to cases other than those provided by law or agreement to that effect. The trigger for action by the municipality had been an increase in parking fees (the subject of the concession is the operation of parking meters installed on city streets), increased unilaterally adopted by the concessionaire. It was, seems to understand the Court's exercise of a contractual right of the dealer, who could not be estimated establishing grounds for termination of the contract, as put forward by the municipality.
So, whether right or wrong failed, the matter at issue depended on considerations relating to the subject of an administrative act, not competition, as suggested by the review of the decision.
The purpose of this note is not to say that Microjuris lies. Although the fact is far from the truth in this case, not for previous trial to suggest that it has done for ideological constraints on the role of administrative law on contracts or for other reasons. In itself, if anything, is serious to note that their work does not meet stringent requirements analysis legal, the blame would be irrelevant if directed against a general journalistic medium, but, being a professional information site for the legal environment is just this kind of "errors" is simply unacceptable.
(*) This idea of \u200b\u200b"limitation" is highly questionable, since the public powers as those granted to the municipality by the art. 36 of Law 18,695, are unavailable for their owners. Rather, a contractual provision that limited the free play of these rules could be read zero.