The Supreme Court reaffirms the primacy of the LPAG in Competition Law (Cassation No. 23590-2023 Lima)
Professional participants
Themes
Our associate Francisco José Floríndez comments on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, which reaffirms the primacy of the General Administrative Procedure Law (LPAG) in competition law matters (Cassation No. 23590-2023 Lima).
In his analysis, he explains how this decision establishes that the guarantees set forth in the LPAG are not optional, but rather minimum standards applicable to sanctioning procedures, directly impacting limitation periods and their calculation.
The Supreme Court of Justice has taken an important step in the application of minimum guarantees to sanctioning procedures in the field of competition law.
Historically, Indecopi has rejected the application of various guarantees provided under the General Administrative Procedure Law (LPAG) to its special procedures, particularly with regard to limitation and expiration periods. However, the Court’s ruling confirms that such guarantees are not optional, but rather minimum thresholds of protection that must be observed in favor of the parties subject to administrative proceedings.
In this regard, the following points are worth highlighting:
- Limitation Period: The ruling confirms that the guarantees set forth in the LPAG apply to special laws and, consequently, rejects the five-year limitation period established under Legislative Decree No. 1034 (Competition Law), requiring instead the application of the four (4) year period provided under the LPAG.
- Suspension Trigger: The Court determines that the notification of the initiation of the administrative proceeding constitutes the event that suspends the limitation period, departing from the previous approach under which any prior investigative act could interrupt such period (as established in the Competition Law).
The reduction of the limitation period and the suspension criterion adopted by the Court mitigate excessive delays in investigations, strengthening predictability and legal certainty for economic agents. While this ruling aligns the competition law regime with the minimum guarantees set forth in the LPAG, there remains a need to clarify key aspects related to expiration periods and the nature of continuing infringements, as well as to assess whether Indecopi will ultimately adopt this jurisprudential criterion.