The prejudicial interpretation of the Andean Community

According to the passage of time and based on the constant struggles of man for the recognition of his rights which have been obtained as a result of the French Revolution, he has been creating rules and laws that allow the regulation of his obligations, in order to achieve harmony that allows the improvement of society in all its aspects.

Thus international treaties arise that will allow not only the improvement of man as an individual being, but also the improvement of society as a whole. It is in this way that in Latin America and based on the precedents left by the European Community the creation of the Andean Community arises as a result of the signing of the Cartagena Agreement.

In this sense, the Andean Community has been integrating over the years countries that have joined voluntarily with the objective of achieving an integral, more balanced and autonomous development through Andean, South American and Latin American integration[1]; which currently has a supranational body whose function is to verify the legality of Community law and which in turn has been carrying out prejudicial interpretations that allow a better application of Community legislation to ensure the effectiveness of the legal system. Said body is called the Court of Justice of the Andean Community.

In this way and as indicated by the same Court on the first prejudicial interpretation judgment in Process 01-IP-87:

«Es función básica de este tribunal, indispensable para tutelar la vigencia del principio de legalidad en el proceso de integración andina y para adaptar funcionalmente su complejo ordenamiento jurídico, la de interpretar sus normas a fin de asegurar su aplicación uniforme en el territorio de los países miembros (…) objetivo fundamental que está lógicamente fuera de las competencias de los jueces nacionales (…)[2]«

From what is indicated by the Court it is possible to see that it is only for the body to carry out the prejudicial interpretations of the community norm and that they will be of uniform application in the territory of the member countries.

Therefore the purposes of the prejudicial interpretation, following the European model are diverse:

I. Collaboration between the judge who knows a process involving a rule of community law and the community court, in order that the latter clarifies their doubts about the interpretation to be given.

II. Guarantee the uniformity and stability of community law, favor its development, speed up its decentralized application, serve as a means of protecting people. In turn, the prejudicial interpretation is intended to standardize the interpretation of Andean Community Law and provide a fair solution to the controversial case, where any of the actionable people (or in certain cases the government) of one of the member countries invoke in their favor in a judicial process a regulation of Andean Community Law[3]

Now, with regard to this last figure, it is necessary to point out that this will be carried out only when the local judges (understood as both the local judges or courts, the arbitrators in law and the administrative authorities that exercise a quasi-jurisdictional function), request the prejudicial interpretation of a community regulation, but not when an individual requests it. Since the Creation Treaty of TJCA (Court of Justice of the Andean Community) does not contain the possibility for a private individual to go directly and freely to the Court to obtain interpretations or concepts; but rather legitimizes only the local judges to request it[4].

However, such action should not confuse with the fact that the parties request the local judge to consider the prejudicial interpretation, which may be granted provided that the local judge determines whether the request is appropriate in accordance with the need or not to apply Community regulations to resolve the specific case. With regard to the figure of the local judge, it is appropriate to point out that, since it is an authority that exercises a quasi-jurisdictional function that requests a prejudicial interpretation from the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, it must evidence as indicated in the Process 121-IP-2014 the following requirements

1. It has been constituted by legal mandate.
2. It is a permanent body.
3. The mandatory character of their competences.
4. The obligation to apply Andean community regulations in the exercise of their faculties.
5. The contradictory nature of the procedures under its responsibility and respect for due process and
6. The impartiality of their acts.

If the aforementioned faculties are not evidenced, said authority may not request the prejudicial interpretation, and in doing so, it shall be declared inadmissible.

On the other hand, it is important to point out that prejudicial interpretations must be requested provided that:

• Within one of the member countries, a legal action has been initiated.
• That in the internal process a regulation of Community Law is going to be applied, that is, the point or issue of Community Law is necessary to resolve the case, since it will influence the decision adopted by the local judge.
• That the local judge should go to the TJCA.

With regard to the second point, we must indicate that, as indicated in Article 32 of the Treaty of Creation of the Community Court of Justice:

«Los jueces nacionales que conozcan de un proceso en el que deba aplicarse o se controvierta alguna de las normas que conforman el ordenamiento jurídico de la Comunidad Andina, podrá solicitar, directamente la interpretación del Tribunal acerca de dichas normas, siempre que la sentencia sea susceptible de recursos en derecho interno. Si llegare la oportunidad de dictar sentencia sin que hubiere recibido la interpretación del Tribunal, el juez deberá decidir el proceso. En todos los procesos en los que la sentencia no fuere susceptible de recursos en derecho interno, el juez suspenderá el procedimiento y solicitará directamente de oficio o a petición de parte la interpretación del Tribunal.

From the aforementioned article, it follows what is known today as the types of a request of prejudicial interpretation, which are in accordance with Articles 121 and 122 of the Statute of the Court, we have:

a) A request for a prejudicial interpretation is optional when the local judge issues a judgment that is susceptible to domestic law, that is, when there are challenging channels for which questioning is possible, so Article 122 of the Statute of the Court respectively indicates:

«Los jueces nacionales que conozcan de un proceso en el que deba aplicarse o se controvierta alguna de las normas que conforman el ordenamiento jurídico de la Comunidad Andina, podrán solicitar, directamente y mediante simple oficio, la interpretación del Tribunal acerca de dichas normas, siempre que la sentencia sea susceptible de recursos en derecho interno (…)». 

Thus, in the case of administrative entities, the request for a prejudicial interpretation is optional, as there are contested appeals that may be applied to the relevant procedures.

Como ejemplo podemos citar la interpretación prejudicial emitida por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina en el Proceso Nº 37-IP-2013: «Interpretación prejudicial de oficio de los artículos 134 literal a), 136 literales a) y f), 150 y 159 de la Decisión 486 de la Comisión de la Comunidad Andina, con fundamento en la solicitud formulada por la Sección Primera del Consejo de Estado de la República de Colombia».

b) A prejudicial interpretation is mandatory when the local judge acts as a final instance, that is to say it includes all those cases in which the decision of the local court that applies Andean Community law is not susceptible to be challenged by judicial appeal, according to the provisions of the internal law. Thus Article 123 of the Statute indicates that:

«“Ex officio or at the request of a party,

In the case of the mandatory prejudicial interpretation, this corresponds only to the Supreme Court, since, since it is the last instance, it is no longer feasible to submit any impugnative appeal.

Para el presente podemos citar como ejemplo lo estipulado en el Proceso 068-OP-2014 sobre «Interpretación prejudicial de los artículos 32 y 33 del Tratado de Creación del Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad andina. 123 de su estatuto, 45 y 46 de la Decisión 486 de la Comunidad Andina, solicitada por la Sala de Derecho Constitucional y social Permanente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República del Perú».

Conclusions:

• The request for the optional and compulsory prejudicial interpretation is of strict compliance by the jurisdictional or quasi-jurisdictional bodies, and they are not constituted as evidence within a procedure or process, since its nature is of procedural incidence.
• The prejudicial interpretation of the Court of the community serves to form homogenizing and integration criteria, since the matter in intellectual property in our country has not been developed in an extensive manner, which serves as a basis and as a guide for the solution of controversies.
• Although prejudicial interpretations make it possible to homogenize the understanding of the regulation, it is necessary to apply the principle of primacy of reality, meanwhile each case must be analyzed in a particular way and according to the territorial reality.

Author: Gheira May Mori Sangam – Intellectual Property Specialist
Law Firm: OMC Abogados & Consultores

___

[1]Portal of the Andean Community (2018). Recovered from:   http://www.comunidadandina.org/Seccion.aspx?id=189&tipo=QU&title=somos-comunidad-andina
[2]Process 01-IP-87: Prejudicial interpretation of articles 58, 62 and 64 of decision 85 of the Commission of the Cartagena Agreement, requested by the Council of State of the Republic of Colombia.
[3]Pachón Muñoz. Manuel. Prejudicial interpretation action in Andean community law. Themis, 23 (1992), p. 76.
[4]Bueno, Martinez Patricio. The prejudicial interpretation. Op. Cit. p. 98-99.