La problemática de la suspensión del arbitraje en el Perú

Abstract

El presente trabajo de investigación aborda el análisis de la problemática de la suspensión del proceso arbitral en el Perú, medida de excepción que podrían adoptar algunos árbitros cuando la validez o legalidad del contrato suscrito por las partes en el marco de un proceso arbitral viene siendo cuestionada, no a nivel judicial, sino a partir de una especulación mediática suscitada por un reporte periodístico o medio de televisión. En estos supuestos, si no existen cuestionamientos a nivel judicial sobre la validez del contrato, no sería suficiente para que se disponga la suspensión del proceso arbitral, por ello, la medida que adoptarían estos árbitros no solo sería desacertada, sino también perjudicial para el propio proceso, pues contravendría el principio de celeridad que rige en todo proceso arbitral, esto por generar demoras o atrasos innecesarios. Además, si bien la decisión de suspender un proceso arbitral podría resultar, en algunos casos, una medida práctica para los árbitros, pues posibilitaría que no incurran en responsabilidad de índole penal, lo cierto es que muchas veces perjudica a las partes, en tanto que afecta su derecho a la tutela jurisdiccional efectiva, pero también a los propios árbitros, pues podrían ser demandados por responsabilidad civil contractual. Por esta razón, se ha concluido en este trabajo de investigación que debería producirse un cambio normativo en la Ley de Arbitraje con la finalidad de regular la facultad que tienen los árbitros para declarar la suspensión de un proceso arbitral. No obstante, mientras no se produzca el cambio normativo planteado, se ha propuesto tres alternativas idóneas y prácticas que, a criterio del suscrito, podrían resolver la problemática planteada.

This research paper addresses the analysis of the problem of the suspension of the arbitration process in Peru, an exceptional measure that some arbitrators could adopt when the validity or legality of the contract signed by the parties in the framework of an arbitration process has been questioned, not at the judicial level, but based on media speculation caused by a journalistic report or television medium. In these cases, if there are no judicial questions about the validity of the contract, it would not be enough to order the suspension of the arbitration process, therefore, the measure that these arbitrators would adopt would not only be unwise, but also detrimental to the process itself, since it would contravene the principle of celerity that governs all arbitration proceedings, this by generating unnecessary delays or delays. In addition, although the decision to suspend an arbitration process could be, in some cases, a practical measure for the arbitrators, since it would make it possible for them not to incur criminal liability, the truth is that it often harms the parties, inasmuch as it affects their right to effective judicial protection, but also the arbitrators themselves, since they could be sued for contractual civil liability. For this reason, it has been concluded in this research work that there should be a regulatory change in the Arbitration Law in order to regulate the power that arbitrators have to declare the suspension of an arbitration process. However, as long as the proposed regulatory change does not take place, three suitable and practical alternatives have been proposed that, in the opinion of the undersigned, could solve the problem raised.

This document offers a proposal of improvement to the current Peruvian Criminal Law, with regards to article 232. To achieve this, the document is based on the fact that the Peruvian Congress, through Law 31040, had determined that the abuse of economic power is considered a crime, and affects all anticompetitive conducts, but the Law does not make an adequate analysis of the necessity of the criminal prosecution of each anticompetitive conduct, and does not take into account the principles that limit the criminal intervention that are recognized by the Peruvian Constitution and doctrine. In that way, the Law 31040, instead of strengthening the current system of repression of anticompetitive conducts, becomes an obstacle for the application of tools that permit the identification and application of sanctions to the most harmful of the anticompetitive conducts, i.e., Cartels. Thus, with the objective to demonstrate that the protection of criminal sanctions represents an effective reinforcement to the current system of repression of anticompetitive conducts at administrative level, and considering the national and international experience, the present document proposes an alternative to modify Law 31040, that consists in the prosecution in criminal jurisdiction applying only to Cartels, as well as other proposals that would strengthen the prosecution of Cartels in administrative and criminal jurisdictions.