In this event confronts different substance-law relationships, claiming its definition in a sentence different content that can be compared to integrating and co-parties that are not in a legal relationship material. That the Attorney General may be proper and improper. Optional joint litigation itself. It is proper when the claims relate to the co-parties are linked by the object or the cause or title (related material), as the case of tort where several victims in the same traffic accident claims against the individual who caused the damage. Optional joint litigation improper. It is improper when there is a connection between the claims of policy instruments, or affinity, or some dependency between them, as the case of creditors who come together to demand running at the same debtor, to-executive poyandose very different titles.
32 Unlike the joint litigation necessary to volunteer in the plurisubjetividad becomes necessary when the law or the legal relationship substantially determine the need for several defendants are, in other words, arises when the presence of a plurality of parties to the proceedings is imposed by the nature of pre-tension itself or discussed the implications of the judicial decision should rest with the process. And so it makes the national tenor, Article 93 of the CPC, which literally reads: “when the decision to fall in the process uniformly affects all co-parties Will only be validly issued and are stationed all appear as joint litigation is active or passive, respectively, unless the law to the contrary “is an exceptional procedural figure, mainly due to the burden in shaping the relationship process, especially liability in the field. Indeed, because of it, the actor can not choose who litigate, but if it decides that there must necessarily process to sue everyone who can to those who may be affected by the res judicata the same 33 that the Attorney necessary, the dependence is total since we are dealing with the case of a causal standing, complex or common under the legal relationship relating to the claim substantially derived.
Being that the text originates noted that the publication should take place in the official newspaper and the amendment states that only requires the publication in the portal Website of the institution concerned and do not have this on the web portal of the Peruvian State, I think that this contradicts Constitution.En seriously effect as already discussed the State Constitution of 1993 has scheduled to take place by the official gazette so that this rule can acquire force, so the rules of inferior rank who violate this provision are unconstitutional. In the same way the Tax Code in its Standard X on the observance of prescribed rules to fiscal matters, specifies that the tax laws governing the day following its publication in the official gazette, and explicitly states that decisions containing directives or instructions to fiscal matters that are of general application shall be published in the Official Journal. In that sense it is clear that the tariff classification rule in the part referred to the Code contradicts. But we must admit that human relationships have changed and the way we communicate, it is not wrong to say that one can be thousands of miles of other people but always be in constant communication, and this has been possible thanks to new technologies, among which computer and internet . It is not difficult to see every day the use of public Internet booths in our country, one can also learn about local and world news entering the relevant website, we can also receive communications from our family, friends and accessing our own address, also verify business processes to the intranet of you, learn the status of court proceedings, etc.. In short there is no denying that this technology reaches more speed and more places and even a very small price. The publication is also not difficult to imagine that, in effect, a publication of the rule in web portals or web sites of institutions can achieve greater advertising in real terms as a completed only in newspaper paper is more, we should note that in the process of contrasts and government procurement, these are made public, which is nothing but the publication process , stages, decisions issued in these over the Internet using the respective web site, recognizing as valid the parties receiving notifications through this channel. In other words, we believe that technology is taking by assault on our way to see and regulate things. The first and legalistic view of our commitment and respect for constitutional and legal hierarchy can not but conclude that the standard indicated in the share of customs classification, conflicts with the disclosure requirements that are contained in constitution so we consider the unconstitutionality of that norm. In respect to the modifications made in the customs classification procedures carried out with the publicity requirements referred to, no shall have binding effect, as in the strict sense that advertising is not contemplated in the Constitution, as well given the lack of standard existence.Finally, we believe it is necessary to shape through a constitutional reform to expand the possibility for certain cases and a hierarchy of rules, for now, the possibility of enforcing the requirement of the standard publicity through any means other than publication in the official gazette, as would be the publication by electronic means.