Informe Jurídico sobre la Resolución Nº 152-2018- OEFA/TFA-SMEPIM
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2024-10-03
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
La presente investigación gira entorno a la Resolución Nº 152-2018-OEFA/TFASMEPIM, resolución de segunda instancia emitida por el Tribunal de
Fiscalización Ambiental del OEFA en donde se resuelve confirmar la imputación
de responsabilidad administrativa y la medida correctiva impuesta a la empresa
Compañía Minera Colquirrumi S.A. por haber incumplido con los Límites
Máximos Permisibles de efluentes mineros y con lo establecido en su Plan de
Cierre de Pasivos Ambientales Mineros, en cuanto no logró neutralizar dichos
efluentes.
En este informe se analiza la fundamentación que realiza el Tribunal de
Fiscalización Ambiental (en adelante, TFA) del OEFA respecto del
incumplimiento de compromisos del Plan de Cierre de Pasivos Ambientales
Mineros de la empresa en mención y su relación con la medida correctiva
impuesta. El TFA al argumentar cuál sería la medida que aseguraría la
reparación del ambiente de la zona en la que se realizó la actividad minera, no
realizó un adecuado razonamiento respecto de cuál sería la medida idónea que
logre el objetivo de protección ambiental.
Como consecuencia del análisis realizado a la resolución materia de este
informe, se concluye que todas las medidas administrativas, en especial, las
correctivas que impone el OEFA deben estar relacionadas con las obligaciones
y/o compromisos señalados en el Plan de Cierre de Pasivos Ambientales
Mineros de Colquirrumi. En ese sentido, el tema de discusión en el presente
trabajo es la crítica que se realiza a los fundamentos que utiliza el TFA al
confirmar lo resuelto por el órgano de primera instancia.
This investigation revolves around Resolution No. 152-2018-OEFA/TFASMEPIM, second instance resolution issued by the OEFA Environmental Control Court where it is resolved to confirm the imputation of administrative responsibility and the corrective measure imposed on the company. Colquirrumi S.A. Mining Company for having failed to comply not only with the Maximum Permissible Limits of mining effluents in sectors 4 and 8, but also with the provisions of its Mining Environmental Liabilities Closure Plan, since it failed to neutralize said effluents in the same sectors. This report analyzes the justification made by the OEFA Inspection Court regarding the breach of commitments of the Closure Plan of the company in question and its relationship with the corrective measure imposed, finding that when arguing about what would be the measure that would ensure the repair of the environment of the area in which the mining activity was carried out, an adequate reasoning was not carried out as to what would be the ideal measure, since this should be a specific one that achieves the objective of environmental protection. As a result of the analysis of the resolution that is the subject of this report, it is concluded that all the administrative measures, especially the corrective measures imposed by the OEFA must be related to the obligations and/or commitments indicated in the Colquirrumi Mine Environmental Liability Closure Plan. In this sense, the subject of discussion in this paper is the criticism of the grounds used by the TFA when confirming the decision of the first instance body.
This investigation revolves around Resolution No. 152-2018-OEFA/TFASMEPIM, second instance resolution issued by the OEFA Environmental Control Court where it is resolved to confirm the imputation of administrative responsibility and the corrective measure imposed on the company. Colquirrumi S.A. Mining Company for having failed to comply not only with the Maximum Permissible Limits of mining effluents in sectors 4 and 8, but also with the provisions of its Mining Environmental Liabilities Closure Plan, since it failed to neutralize said effluents in the same sectors. This report analyzes the justification made by the OEFA Inspection Court regarding the breach of commitments of the Closure Plan of the company in question and its relationship with the corrective measure imposed, finding that when arguing about what would be the measure that would ensure the repair of the environment of the area in which the mining activity was carried out, an adequate reasoning was not carried out as to what would be the ideal measure, since this should be a specific one that achieves the objective of environmental protection. As a result of the analysis of the resolution that is the subject of this report, it is concluded that all the administrative measures, especially the corrective measures imposed by the OEFA must be related to the obligations and/or commitments indicated in the Colquirrumi Mine Environmental Liability Closure Plan. In this sense, the subject of discussion in this paper is the criticism of the grounds used by the TFA when confirming the decision of the first instance body.
Description
Keywords
Derecho ambiental--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Control ambiental--Perú, Industria minera--Aspectos ambientales--Perú, Derecho administrativo--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Sanciones administrativas--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Procedimiento administrativo--Jurisprudencia--Perú
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess