📋 Tender Overview
The Fifth Chamber of Transitory Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice established clearer rules for the presentation of appeals, and thus contribute to the legal security and predictability of judicial resolutions in tax and customs matters.
This was reported by the president of the aforementioned court, Ulises Yaya Zumaeta, who indicated that through the cassation rulings 26385-2023/ Lima and 23653-2023/ Lima, the referee made clarifications so that when the litigants present appeals for cassation they distinguish when a ruling is considered jurisprudence or jurisprudential doctrine or judicial precedent.
He specified that jurisprudence is all the rulings issued by the Supreme Court, which are not necessarily binding; while jurisprudential doctrine is a repeated line of resolution of similar cases, two, three, four or five cases that are resolved with the same criteria.
Here, when there is a repeated resolution of cases with the same criteria, we are creating jurisprudential doctrine, which can then direct us to the establishment of a judicial precedent, which should be respected by all judges of the lower courts, he said. he.
Yaya Zumaeta indicated that they are establishing clearer rules so that those who file cassation appeals in tax and customs matters know what criteria are adopted by the Chamber, so that their appeals adequately support them.
I believe that these clarifications will contribute to clearer and more effective justice in favor of litigants, who will see their cases with the legal clarity that they deserve and demand, he remarked.
The magistrate expressed that, currently, litigants can make different justifications in their appeals, one of them is the exceptional nature of the appeal with the argument of strengthening the jurisprudential doctrine, but to do so they have to prove that jurisprudential doctrine exists. Not any cassation ruling is jurisprudential doctrine, he specified.
He added that litigants also invoke the existence of judicial precedents, when they exist, which can be a final guide to resolve the case, because in these cases predictability counts.
He also added that these guidelines could contribute to the procedural discharge because it would prevent the entry of resources that invoke supposed jurisprudential doctrine when there is none. But its not about that either, but rather that the defendant receives an adequate response in accordance with the law, he said.
