THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDECOPI 'S MANDATES AND THE LATE PAYMENT OF COSTS. REGARDING RESOLUTION 0474-2026/SEL-INDECOPI

In Peruvian administrative law, getting the State to meet its monetary obligations after losing a process is a common challenge. Many municipalities delay reimbursement of procedural costs, mistakenly assuming that their public nature gives them flexibility vis-à-vis enforcement mandates. Resolution 0474-2026/SEL-INDECOPI of the Specialized Chamber on the Elimination of Bureaucratic Barriers puts this situation in order. By confirming a fine of 0.59 ITU against the Provincial Municipality of Morropón - Chulucanas, the Chamber ratifies a key criterion: late compliance with an obligation does not exempt from liability if it is made after notification of the imputation of charges in a sanctioning procedure (PAS). Next, we analyze this case and interpret its legal relevance applying the theory of precedent (understanding precedent in a broad sense). I. Procedural Iter: from the payment mandate to the penalty for delay

The case dates back to the process of eliminating bureaucratic barriers (File 000019-2022/CEB-INDECOPI-PIU), where the complaint of citizen Humberto Lázaro Martínez was declared founded because the commune of Morropón ignored the automatic approval of its operating licenses. By Final Resolution 0247-2023/INDECOPI-PIU (confirmed by Resolution 0451-2023/SEL-INDECOPI), the municipality was ordered to reimburse the costs within a maximum period of 15 business days. However, the city skipped the payment for nearly two years. During the preliminary investigation (File 0001-2024-IM-PIU), the commune alleged that it had challenged the resolution before the Judiciary via a contentious-administrative process. The Regional Technical Secretariat (SRB) clarified that Indecopi's mandates are immediately enforceable and that the judicial process does not suspend their mandatory nature. In the face of continued contempt, on September 3, 2025, a pas was initiated against the municipality, notifying the imputation of charges on September 17, 2025. Two days later (on September 19, 2025), the municipality hastily made the deposit. In his disclaimers, he requested the dismissal of the proceedings applying the principle of reasonableness, claiming that the debt had already been paid and the damage compensated. However, the Commission and the Chamber confirmed that the objective infringement was consummated at the expiration of the deadline. The regularization after the imputation of charges does not archive the case; it only qualifies as a mitigating condition of liability, confirming the reduced fine of 0.59 ITU. II. The rules found in the resolution

1. Ratio Decidendi in the strict sense

NJ1 is the resultant first-degree standard that subsumes the factual premises of the controversy. In this case, it is reconstructed as follows:

If a building entity fails to comply for more than one year with the firm mandate to pay costs, intending to suspend it for a judicial process in progress and pays the debt only two days after the notification of the imputation of charges of a pas, said entity commits the objective infringement provided for in paragraph 1 of article 36 of Legislative Decree 1256 and must be sanctioned with a reduced fine (0.59 ITU) due to its late egularization. 2. Ratio Decidendi in the broad sense

NJ2 are those general normative interpretations deduced from the rationale that do not depend on the singular facts of the case, serving as a binding guide for future situations. Two stand out:

Article 234-A of the TUO of Law 27444 (LPAG) establishes an exhaustive list of exemptions from liability. Voluntary correction only exempts if it is made prior to the notification of charge. This closed list does not support extensive or analogical interpretations by the administrative courts [397]. The fulfillment of a payment mandate once the pas has begun does not constitute a case of subtraction of the matter or exemption from liability, but only a mitigating condition for the graduation of the fine. The validity and force of these rules is supported by a consolidated horizontal jurisprudential line of the Chamber (Resolutions 0285-2021/SEL, 0141-2022/SEL, 0128-2023/SEL and 0158-2023/SEL-INDECOPI, which consolidates a high positive empirical relevance and predictability in the system of elimination of bureaucratic barriers. III. Practical Implications for Managed

Resolution 0474-2026/SEL-INDECOPI establishes an indispensable standard of protection for companies and citizens against state delinquency:

Indecopi's mandates must be fulfilled immediately. Going to the judicial contentious-administrative process does not suspend the payment obligation. Non-compliance with procedural mandates is objectively verified [394]. The charge notification date determines whether the payment qualifies as exonerating (before) or merely mitigating (after). By refusing filing for late regularizations, public entities are discouraged from postponing deposits, incentivizing spontaneous compliance within 15 business days to avoid additional financial penalties. This pronouncement provides legal advisors with a valuable pressure tool to demand that State entities timely fulfill their procedural obligations for the benefit of their sponsors.