Responsabilidad en pretensión de reparación directa frente a la tipología del perjuicio inmaterial.

Abstract

With the entry into force of the 1991 Constitution, the general rule of state responsibility is established, according to which the state financially liable for wrongful damage attributable to it, caused by the acts or omissions of public authorities. And in the event that he is convicted for compensatory damages of one of such damage has been caused by willful or gross misconduct by one of its agents, one must repeat against it, as is clear from the content of the article 90 Superior. Therefore, a modification was required to the Administrative Code, and that this general liability clause, was affected by provisions were issued in place of the regulatory text of the Constitution of 1886; therefore, the legislature issued Law 1437 of 2011, which incorporates the contentious action through control and / or direct repair claims under the terms of Article 90 of the Constitution, under the name of unlawful damage arising the act or omission of State agents, Article 140 CPACA. In this regard, the State has the obligation to answer for these wrongful injury and initiate the claim in addition to repetition, a legal development in accordance with law 678 of 2001 and Article 142 of Law 1437 2011 Therefore, the reason for research is given by the indication of the line of jurisprudence developed by the Council of State, in relation to the type of unlawful damage for those seeking compensation under the terms of Article 16 of Law 446 of 1998, not only economic but comprehensive and to address the principles of justice and equity.