The Legal Antagonism Between the Action of Lesivity and its Applicability to Regular and Irregular Administrative Acts

Abstract

The article addresses the legal antagonism between the action of harm and its origin in the face of regular and irregular administrative acts in Ecuador, focusing on the tension between the resolutions of the Constitutional Court and the National Court. The problem lies in the application of the action of damages, especially in cases where administrative acts present legal defects, as was the case of ruling No. 030-18-SEP-CC. The objective is to analyze jurisprudential discrepancies and their implications for legal certainty through the principle of legality. The method used is non-experimental and explanatory, with a qualitative approach based on documentary and bibliographic analysis. The validity of administrative acts, the doctrinal and historical foundations of the action for damages, and comparative legislation are examined. The findings indicate a lack of consensus among the Courts on the applicability of the action of damages in irregular administrative acts. While the Constitutional Court favors the legal security of the administrator, by allowing the action of harm even in irregular acts, the National Court maintains that it should only be applied in regular acts or with valid defects. The conclusions highlight the importance of a coherent and uniform interpretation of the law to guarantee legal certainty. This research contributes to the understanding of administrative law in Ecuador, offering a critical perspective on the coexistence of jurisprudential rules and administrative practice.