Effect of the judicial recess on the expiry of contentious-administrative actions and effective judicial protection

Abstract

Ecuador’s procedural framework for administrative litigation places claimants in a practical contradiction: short limitation (lapse) periods for filing suit may expire during the judicial recess, even when institutional closure prevents the complaint from being lodged, turning a measure designed to protect procedural guarantees into a factor that definitively extinguishes the right of action. This study adopts a qualitative, dogmatic-legal, and hermeneutic methodology, based on mapping the applicable normative framework, a systematic-teleological interpretation of lapse (caducity) and judicial recess, content analysis of relevant case law, and the application of a proportionality test to assess the severity of the impairment. The discussion argues that limiting the suspension of time limits to “pending proceedings” produces material defenselessness incompatible with effective judicial protection and the pro actione principle, since time runs against those facing an objective impossibility created by the system itself. It further contends that less restrictive alternatives exist—such as excluding the recess period from the calculation or suspending the time limit during the recess, providing minimal filing channels, or adjusting the dies a quo—that preserve legal certainty without foreclosing access to justice. It concludes that, where an institutional impediment arises due to the recess, the lapse period should be suspended or, at minimum, not counted, and that an explicit legislative reform would reduce litigation and ensure normative coherence.