Analysis of the Insufficiency of Interlocutory Rulings Subject to Appeal in the COGEP

Abstract

The appeal system provided for in the General Organic Code of Civil Procedure has been designed with a focus on speed, concentration, and procedural economy; however, the restrictive definition of interlocutory orders subject to appeal has raised doubts regarding its compatibility with the right to effective judicial protection, due process, and the right to appeal. The objective of this research is to determine the validity of current provisions regarding the challenge of preliminary injunctions in civil proceedings in Ecuador. The methodology employed a qualitative, legal-dogmatic approach with descriptive, analytical, and critical scope; furthermore, systematic and constitutional methods were utilized, as well as normative and doctrinal methods that complement judicial analyses. An analysis of the provisions of the COGEP indicates that the appeals system is closed and limited, preventing the review of interim decisions that have a significant impact on the pleadings, the evidence, enforcement, and procedural fairness. The result is a tension between the goal of procedural expediency and the constitutional requirement to guarantee an effective remedy against rulings that affect rights. It is concluded that the current regulation is insufficient to address all cases of significant impact, and therefore requires a constitutional interpretation that safeguards rights and a technically defined regulatory reform that expands, with admissibility criteria, the appeal of burdensome interlocutory rulings