Análisis de la caducidad del procedimiento administrativo

Abstract

Administrative procedures, regulated in Title Seven of the General Law of Public Administration, No. 6227, may end in an extraordinary -or anormal- way through the legal mechanism of expiration, which penalizes the failure to promote and manage, within the deadlines of law, when the procedure fails to comply with the mandate established in the Political Constitution, which imposes on Public Administrations to guarantee prompt and fulfilled justice, in strict adherence to the current legal system; in such a way that if the Public Administration in charge of the procedure does not comply with these constitutional principles, the legal security and effective defense of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens will prevail objectively (CIJUL, 2013). However, it is extremely important to determine, in light of an analysis of the criteria of the Attorney General’s Office and the Contentious Administrative and Civil Court of Finance, the practical application of expiration, to determine what are the criteria for its invocation, as well as the effects derived from the declaration of expiration of an administrative procedure, weighing the jurisprudential theses of the indicated bodies, both administrative and judicial, together with the specialized doctrine that has been devoted to its study, clarifying the differences that exist between expiration and prescription. The certainty of the expiration budgets, both normative and
jurisprudential, allows to understand -with profuse clarity- the correct interpretation of the expiration, to confer greater guarantees to those who face an administrative procedure, considering the fundamental right to prompt and fulfilled justice.