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

Abstract

Abstract: The study evaluated the reasoning behind the judgment issued in contentious-administrative case No. 17811-2019-01424 to determine its compliance with constitutional standards regarding the sufficiency and quality of argumentation. A qualitative approach was employed, utilizing document analysis, the legal-analytical method, and assessment criteria for the sufficiency and correctness of the reasoning. The results showed that the ruling contains legal and factual grounds that make the decision understandable, as it links the timeframes stipulated in the Organic Law of the State Comptroller General to the administrative authority's loss of temporal jurisdiction. No serious deficiencies such as absence of reasoning, incoherence, irrelevance, inconsistency, or incomprehensibility were identified. However, the assessment of certain evidentiary elements could have been explained with greater precision. It was concluded that the judgment meets the minimum standard of sufficiency and presents a clear argumentative structure, although there is room for improvement in explicitly detailing the connection between the evidence, the facts, and the legal consequences.