La necesidad del motivo prohibido como elemento del tipo que prohíbe la discriminación en el consumo
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021-09-27
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El objetivo general del trabajo es determinar si el tipo infractor de discriminación en el
consumo, contenido en el artículo 38º del Código de Protección y Defensa al Consumidor,
debería o no contemplar como uno de sus elementos constitutivos el motivo prohibido de
diferenciación, es decir, que el denunciante pertenezca a un grupo humano considerado
vulnerable y que expresa o implícitamente proteja el listado del numeral 2 del artículo 2º de
la constitución. Para este propósito, el autor ha revisado jurisprudencia constitucional y
administrativa relevante, así como el desarrollo que se ha hecho del concepto y sus funciones
en el orden convencional y en la doctrina. Así, luego de este desarrollo, son conclusiones del
presente trabajo que el concepto de discriminación en el consumo sí debe requerir como
elemento constitutivo la pertenencia del denunciante a un motivo prohibido de
diferenciación, pues dicha opción interpretativa es la más coherente con el marco
convencional y constitucional y la más congruente con la función que se ha pensado para
esta institución jurídica.
The main goal of this paper is to determine whether the type of consumer discrimination, contained in the article 38º of the Código de Protección y Defensa al Consumidor, should consider or not, as one of it constitutive elements, a prohibited motive of differentiation, that is, requiring the complainant to belong to a human group considered vulnerable and expressly or implicitly protected in the list of the 2.2 article of the Peruvian constitution. In order to achieve this, the author has reviewed relevant constitutional an administrative jurisprudence, as well as what has been said of the concept and its functions in the conventional order an in the doctrine. Thus, the conclusions of this paper are that the consumer discrimination should require, as a constitutive element, the belonging of the complainant to a prohibited motive of differentiation, given that said option is the most consistent with the conventional and constitutional framework and the most congruent with the mission that has been thought for this legal institution.
The main goal of this paper is to determine whether the type of consumer discrimination, contained in the article 38º of the Código de Protección y Defensa al Consumidor, should consider or not, as one of it constitutive elements, a prohibited motive of differentiation, that is, requiring the complainant to belong to a human group considered vulnerable and expressly or implicitly protected in the list of the 2.2 article of the Peruvian constitution. In order to achieve this, the author has reviewed relevant constitutional an administrative jurisprudence, as well as what has been said of the concept and its functions in the conventional order an in the doctrine. Thus, the conclusions of this paper are that the consumer discrimination should require, as a constitutive element, the belonging of the complainant to a prohibited motive of differentiation, given that said option is the most consistent with the conventional and constitutional framework and the most congruent with the mission that has been thought for this legal institution.
Description
Keywords
Protección del consumidor--Perú, Discriminación--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