Suspension of the Unilateral Termination of Administrative Contracts: Decisions of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction

Abstract

The suspension of an administrative act is a precautionary measure designed to temporarily neutralize the effects of decisions issued by the public administration, ensuring that the review of legality carried out by the contentious-administrative jurisdiction is effective and that the final judgment retains practical utility. Under Ecuadorian law, it is regulated by the Organic Administrative Code (COA) and the Organic General Procedural Code (COGEP), which require the existence of irreparable harm or harm that is very difficult to remedy, together with a prima facie case and the reasonableness of the measure. However, the notion of “irreparability” lacks uniform parameters, leading to divergent interpretations in judicial practice. This paper examines the legal nature of suspension, its evolution as a limitation on the Administration’s prerogatives of self-enforcement, and the problems stemming from the conceptual indeterminacy of periculum in mora. Based on a case study of unilateral terminations of public contracts, it shows that, in the face of similar fact courts apply divergent criteria: some regard these consequences as harm that is difficult to remedy, while others deem them reparable through monetary compensation. The research argues that the standard for assessing the danger in delay should aim to preserve the real effectiveness of the judgment, prioritizing the protection of rights over purely pecuniary redress and incorporating a balancing test that includes extra-patrimonial and irreversible dimensions. It concludes that a rights-oriented and uniform
interpretation of periculum in mora is essential to strengthening effective judicial protection.

Keywords: Administrative act, validity, effectiveness, suspension, damage, danger, delay