Nulidad absoluta por falencias en la planeación contractual conforme la sentencia CE SIII E 27315-2013
Cargando...
Fecha
2019
Autores
Castillo Povea, Eduardo José
Paez Barros, Jorge Enrique
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
El Consejo de Estado de Colombia, a través de la sentencia CE SIII E 27315-2013 introdujo al ordenamiento jurídico una nueva causal de nulidad absoluta por objeto ilícito, la cual se genera por falencias en la planeación del contrato estatal. De acuerdo con la normatividad vigente, la planeación del proceso contractual le corresponde únicamente a la entidad contratante conforme a las leyes 80 de 1993, 1150 de 2007, 1474 de 2011, 1882 de 2018 y el decreto reglamentario 1082 de 2015. No obstante, el Consejo de Estado en la referida sentencia le asigna el deber de planeación al contratista, sin tener en consideración que el mismo no está obligado a realizar dicha función en la etapa precontractual, como tampoco a subsanar defectos generados en la primera etapa de planeación, cuando aún no hay contratista porque el proceso de selección está en momentos previos a la expedición y publicación del acto administrativo de apertura del proceso, y donde solo hay potenciales proponentes, pero no contratista, que es a quien legalmente se le exige el deber de colaboración en la ejecución del contrato. Con la declaratoria de nulidad del contrato por objeto ilícito, se suspende la ejecución del mismo y el contratista debe asumir la pérdida de casi todos los recursos invertidos en la ejecución de la obra, lo cual equivale a decir, que por disposición judicial, el contratista sufre detrimento patrimonial, investigación penal, fiscal y afectación en su inscripción en el RUP porque el Estado contratante no cumple con el deber de correcta planeación, lo que constituye evidente injusticia para con el contratista.
The State Council of Colombia, through the EC judgment SIII E 27315-2013 introduced the legal system a new cause of absolute nullity for illegal purposes, which is generated by shortcomings in the planning of the state contract. In accordance with current regulations, the planning of the contractual process would correspond to the contracting entity in accordance with laws 80 of 1993, 1150 of 2007, 1474 of 2011, 1882 of 2018 and regulatory decree 1082 of 2015. However, in the aforementioned judgment, the State Council assigns the contractor a planning duty, without taking into consideration that he is not obliged to perform said function in the pre-contractual stage, nor to correct defects generated in the first stage of planning, when there is still no contractor because the selection process is in moments prior to the issuance and publication of the administrative act of opening the process, and where there are only potential proponents, but not a contractor, which is the one who is legally required to of collaboration in the execution of the contract. With the declaration of nullity of the contract for illicit purpose, the execution of the contract is suspended and the contractor must assume the loss of almost all the resources invested in the execution of the work, which is equivalent to saying that, by judicial provision, the contractor suffers from property detriment, criminal investigation, tax and involvement in its registration in the RUP because the contracting State does not fulfill the duty of proper planning, which constitutes obvious injustice towards the contractor.
The State Council of Colombia, through the EC judgment SIII E 27315-2013 introduced the legal system a new cause of absolute nullity for illegal purposes, which is generated by shortcomings in the planning of the state contract. In accordance with current regulations, the planning of the contractual process would correspond to the contracting entity in accordance with laws 80 of 1993, 1150 of 2007, 1474 of 2011, 1882 of 2018 and regulatory decree 1082 of 2015. However, in the aforementioned judgment, the State Council assigns the contractor a planning duty, without taking into consideration that he is not obliged to perform said function in the pre-contractual stage, nor to correct defects generated in the first stage of planning, when there is still no contractor because the selection process is in moments prior to the issuance and publication of the administrative act of opening the process, and where there are only potential proponents, but not a contractor, which is the one who is legally required to of collaboration in the execution of the contract. With the declaration of nullity of the contract for illicit purpose, the execution of the contract is suspended and the contractor must assume the loss of almost all the resources invested in the execution of the work, which is equivalent to saying that, by judicial provision, the contractor suffers from property detriment, criminal investigation, tax and involvement in its registration in the RUP because the contracting State does not fulfill the duty of proper planning, which constitutes obvious injustice towards the contractor.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Nulidad absoluta, Falencias, Planeación contractual y sentencia CE SIII E 27315-2013, Absolute nullity, Flaws, Contractual planning and EC judgment SIII E 27315-2013