DOCTRINE 1. "The right of citizens to choose and implement a court, namely, a court with jurisdiction specified in terms of consumer protection, is unquestionable and inviolable, subject to the action, even parallel, an administrative body such as the Superintendency Health Service in monitoring and review technical situations referring to the production and supply of drinking water "
San Bernardo 14 August, two thousand.
seen and considered that Articles 25 subsections 1 and 2 and 2, clause 3 of the Law 19.496, which prescribes that suspends, paralizare or perform a service without justification previously engaged and which was paid right connection, installation, integration or maintenance shall be punished by a fine of up to 150 tax units, when the service was drinking water, gas, sewerage, electricity, telephone and garbage or toxic elements, the responsible will be punished by a fine of up to 300 units monthly tax, and that the rules of law referred to shall not apply to the production, manufacture, import, construction, distribution and marketing of goods or services covered by special laws except that these materials do not provide.
That fact, as expressed by the appellant, the activities related to the provision of drinking water are regulated by health legislation in a different regulatory structure, not organic, or standardized, determined solely by the regulatory activity, including the law to govern General of Health Services (DFL 382, December 30, 1988, with amendments introduced by Articles 13, 26 and 1 in 18,885 and 18,986 respectively laws), the DFL N ° 70 on tariffs with its rules contained in Supreme Decree No. 453, Law 18,778 which provides grants and 18,902 law that creates the Superintendency of Sanitary Services.
That the mere fact that an area of \u200b\u200bthe economy or national activity has a regulation through special laws scares not starting, the duration, though partial, of the Consumer Protection Act and beyond set peremptorily for judicial process if the health standards as a whole take precedence over those of the above Act or vice versa, or if the second impliedly repealed the first in some ways because it was issued later, Judge is a fundamental task of analyzing in detail the special law, identifying its potential regulatory gaps, in places where you can reclaim your life the Consumer Protection Act, assuming that both systems coexist devices without being incompatible with each other, a purely administrative nature and a punitive judicial nature;
That consumer protection law in Article 25 paragraph 2 transcribed above in relation to its other provisions, establishes a system specific, direct and court or consumer of health services and others to complain to a court of the Republic punitive power in a special, fast, which is the law itself cited in relation to the 18,287 law, the safeguarding of their rights violated believe, with the ability to sue civilly further damage that it come at the same venue and within the same procedure as a whole matter is not regulated in this way in public health laws, why should not apply in this case the exception of paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Law 19,496.
The right of citizens to choose and implement a national court, namely, a court with jurisdiction specified in terms of consumer protection, which is also the one called for this purpose in our law, it is unquestionable and inviolable, subject to the action, even parallel, an administrative body such as the Superintendency of Sanitary Services in the audit and review of technical situations referring to the production and supply drinking water.
That case accompanied by the appellant refers exclusively to the generation and electricity distribution is not inconsistent with previously considered. In fact, in the first case study the situation of an electricity generating company had no direct relationship with the consumer distribution, as in research question, and in the second case, investigated the situation of a power distribution reported for violating Articles 23 and 45 of Law 19,496 and not 25, as in this process, the subsection expressly February 1 hypothesis infraction related to the suspension, cessation or failure to provide a service unjustified electricity, water and others separate their nature and finally, to undertake an analysis of a possible violation of the principle ne bis in idem and res judicata invoked by the applicant is required among other things, the existence of a conviction that affects the claim, an issue that does not happen here. In fact even appears in the process there is a parallel process for the same facts under investigation but is different in nature and the tenor of the administration.
And having in mind the other down in Articles 1, 2, 25, 56, Law 19,496, Article 32 of Law 18,287, Article 10 of the Organic Code of Courts, 181 of the Code. Civil Procedure,
Resolved,
No has led to the replacement of folio 54, without costs, and no grounds to appeal a subsidiary of FIRST ADDENDUM on pages 48 to 53 as irrelevant.
Leonardo Aravena, Acting Judge.
