Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the judicial reasoning of a judgment issued by a first-level judge in Ecuador, in case No. 01201-2024-00241. The case involves a protective action filed against the Gualaceo Canton Government by a citizen who alleged infringement of her property rights due to the imposition of an administrative easement. The judgment was dismissed, considering that there had been a voluntary transfer through a public deed. However, the analysis shows that, while the ruling formally complies with the requirements for reasoning, there are argumentative gaps related to the assessment of "voluntariness" and the application of principles such as proportionality and reasonableness. The analytical method was applied to the study, using the "EL SER" technique and evaluation tools such as the judicial reasoning questionnaire. It is concluded that the judicial reasoning is legally valid, although it could be improved in substantive terms. It is recommended to strengthen the argumentation of justice operators and promote clear negotiation mechanisms between local governments and citizens, especially when fundamental rights are involved.