El medio de control de repetición en la ley 1437 de 2011

Abstract

Article 90 of the Constitution, the general clause enshrined State responsibility, under which "the state financially liable for wrongful damage attributable to it, caused by the acts or omissions of public authorities. In the event the state is ordered for compensatory damages of one of such damage has been caused by willful or gross misconduct by one of its agents, it should be repeated against it, " legal provision that introduced not only the concept of damage as a common element of public accountability but also the illegality thereof for purposes of the declaration of responsibility. Therefore , you should check the applicable cases in which the control means repetition , understood in the terms of Article 142 of CPACA , such as the State has had to make a compensatory recognition during a sentence , conciliation or other termination form conflicts arising from willful or gross negligence or former public server or particular exercise of public functions server behavior rule is a consequence of the provisions of article 3 paragraph 5 ibid , when it states that the principle of morality should be mandatory for all public servants , ie that rectitude , loyalty and honesty in the administrative proceedings . But notice how the issue regarding the call security purposes repetition, before the enactment of Law 1437 of 2011, did not generate a purpose of control as to their proper use, for there effectiveness is clothed in the exercise of its applicability, and in this situation the highest organ of the administrative jurisdiction was a severe wake-up call, for lack of vigilance and control of the judicial activity as actors in bringing the action for recovery called for recovery public monies nature, as long as the willful or gross misconduct by one of its agents, thus verifying its compensation function and at the same time preventing it in the future, arising out of the same root causes responsibility is verified.