“Simple” electronic signature, certified electronic signature, and scanned signature in contracts

la-firma-electrónica-simple-firma-electronica-certificada-y-firma-escaneada-en-los-contratos-mario-fernandez-abogados-ecuador

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced companies to adapt to the digital age through the use of Information Technologies (TIC’s) to guarantee the continuity of their operations, such as contract signing. The electronic signature has gained particular importance as a useful tool to avoid the parties’  physical concurrence when entering a contract. Also, it streamlines the process and improves document management.

Some people may confuse the electronic signature with the handwritten signature scanned and embedded in an electronic document; also, the electronic signature certified by an accredited local entity should not be confused with one that does not have said certification. 

This article analyzes the “simple” electronic signature, the certified electronic signature, and the scanned signature to differentiate them and determine the contract’s legal effects.

For the analysis, we assume a  contract between private parties that is not subject to any solemnity.

  1. “Simple” electronic signature and certified electronic signature

The electronic signature is regulated by the Law of Electronic Commerce, Signatures and Data Messages (hereinafter, “LCE”). It defines it as: “[…] the data in electronic form consigned in a data message, attached or logically associated with it, and that can be used to identify the owner of the signature with the data message, and indicate that the owner of the signature approves and acknowledges the information contained in the data message. “[1]

According to article 15 of the LCE, the electronic signature must meet the following requirements for its validity:

” a) Be individual and be linked exclusively to its owner;

b) That allows to verify the authorship and identity of the signatory unequivocally, through technical verification devices established by this law and its regulations;

c) That its method of creation and verification is reliable, safe and unalterable for the purpose for which the message was generated or communicated;

d ) That at the time of the creation of the electronic signature, the data with which it is created is under the exclusive control of the signatory, and,

e) That the signature is controlled by the person to whom it belongs. “[2]

The electronic signature has the same validity and  legal effects recognized in a handwritten signature (or physical signature).

The LCE does not use the denomination digital signature and electronic signature like in other countries to differentiate the electronic signature certified by an accredited entity before the competent authority in Ecuador (hereinafter, “Certified Electronic Signature”) from that electronic signature that does not have said certification (hereinafter, “Simple Electronic Signature”). The LCE calls both “electronic signature ”.

The electronic signature certificate is not a requirement for the validity of the electronic signature. According to the LCE, said certificate simply consists of “ […] a message that certifies the link of an electronic signature with a specific person, through a verification process that confirms their identity.”[3] and it is used mainly to “[…] certify the identity of the owner of an electronic signature […]”[4]

Consequently, the Simple Electronic Signature and the Certified Electronic Signature are valid. The difference between one and the other is in the presumption of legitimacy that the law grants to the Certified Electronic Signature when it is presented as evidence in a legal process:

“Art. 53.- Presumption. – When an electronic signature certified by an accredited information certification entity is presented as evidence, it will be presumed that it meets the requirements determined by law, and that consequently, the electronic signature data has not been altered since its issuance and that it belongs to the signatory ”. [5] (highlighted out of text)

It should be noted that the parties can agree to the use of electronic signatures generated through tools such as DocuSign, AdobeSign, among others. They do not necessarily have a local certification but are useful; they are within reach of any person, national or foreign, and expedite business.

When electronic signatures have a certificate issued and accredited by a foreign entity, it is possible to revalidate it[6] before an accredited Ecuadorian entity[7], with the same value as a local certificate. Notwithstanding this, the parties may agree to the use of electronic signatures and certificates that are not accredited. That agreement will be legally valid[8].

In short, if the Simple Electronic Signature meets the requirements provided for in the law, and its use is agreed between the parties, it can be used to sign contracts and it cannot be deprived of legal effects because it does not have a local electronic signature certificate. However, it will not enjoy the presumption of legitimacy that the LCE grants to the Certified Electronic Signature.

  1. Scanned Signatures

The Scanned Signature is only a facsimile of an original handwritten signature (hereinafter “Scanned Signature”). All a person has to do is scan their handwritten signature or that of a third party contained in a physical document to generate it and incorporate it into an electronic document.

The Scanned Signature is not regulated in the LCE, but it can be valid as long as the parties acknowledge such validity and it is part of a data message [9](eg in a document attached to an email). This is due to the principle of autonomy of the will and in view of the fact that data messages and documents incorporated by reference have the same legal value as written documents, as provided by law. In order to guarantee the validity of the Scanned Signature, it is important to observe the provisions of the LCE when sending, receiving and keeping the data message that contains the signed contract.

In conclusion, the Scanned Signature produces binding effects, provided that: (i) the parties so agree; (ii) the signed document is part of a data message and (iii) it is possible to access said data message, for later consultation. However, since this type of signature is not generated through a system that guarantees its authenticity, authorship and integrity, it cannot be considered an electronic signature.

[1] Ecuador, Law of Electronic Commerce, Signatures and Data Messages, Official Register Supplement 557, April 17, 2002, Art. 13.

[2] Ibidem, Art. 15.

[3] Ibidem, Art. 20.

[4] Ibidem, Art. 21.

[5] Ibidem, Art. 53.

[6] Ibidem, First General Provision.

[7] Ecuador, Regulation to the Electronic Commerce Law, Signatures and Data Messages, Official Registry 735, December 31, 2002, Art. 16.

[8] Ecuador, Electronic Commerce Law, Signatures and Data Messages, Official Registry Supplement 557, April 17, 2002, Art. 28.

[9] According to the Electronic Commerce Law, a data message “[…] It is all information created, generated, processed, sent, received, communicated or filed by electronic means, which can be exchanged by any medium. The following electronic documents, electronic records, electronic mail, web services, telegram, telex, fax and electronic data exchange will be considered as data messages, without this enumeration limiting its definition. “

Mario Fernández García
Asociado en CorralRosales
mfernadez@corralrosales.com

Derechos Intelectuales Vol. 25 – Theoretical approach to the patent and compulsory licensing regime in Ecuador

patents-and-licenses-mandatory-rights-intellectual-katherine-gonzalez-lawyers-ecuador

DETAILS

DATE: 23-12-2020

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Katherine González

MEDIA: ASIPI

Katherine González, CorralRosales’s associate, wrote for the book “Intellectual Rights Volume 25”, published by the Inter-American Association of Intellectual Property (ASIPI). She wrote a complete chapter on the theoretical approach to the regime of patents and compulsory licenses in Ecuador; the chapter has three main sections, each one explained in depth: intellectual property, patents, and compulsory patent licenses.

ASIPI gives González the opportunity to explain the subject of invention patents and compulsory licenses in a direct and straightforward way. Her main objective is to help as many people as possible understand this topic and be able to access, in this way, a more in-depth technical and specific knowledge in this area.

Gonzalez does her analysis using national and international instruments that govern the matter, which allows her to compare them directly, “seeking a comprehensive interpretation.”

Without losing sight of the pandemic caused by COVID-19, which has changed the plans for 2020, our associate wanted to dedicate the last section of her chapter to compulsory licenses on medicines within the said pandemic framework.

In conclusion, González explains that the Intellectual Property area has usually been divided into two main branches: ‘Copyright and “Industrial Property”. Copyright protects literary, artistic or scientific creations, which are original and can be reproduced or disclosed by any form or medium known or to be known. This branch includes neighboring rights, referring to the rights of third parties related to the author, such as interpreters, producers of phonograms, and radio broadcasters. On the other hand, we find ‘Industrial Property’, which includes trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications, and patents. “

If you want to read the full chapter of the publication Intellectual Rights Volume 25 (under registration), click here.

El Comercio – Hemp seeds are approved in Imbabura and Pichincha

el-comercio-en-imbabura-y-pichincha-se-aprueban-semillas-de-canamo-abogados-ecuador-thc

DETAILS

DATE: 16-12-2020

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Felipe Samaniego

MEDIA: El Comercio

Felipe Samaniego, partner at CorralRosales and leader of the Ecuadorian Association of Cannabis Industries, has participated in an article published by the digital medium El Comercio. It reports on the approval of hemp seeds in the Ecuadorian provinces of  Imbabura and Pichincha.

A cultivation of 140 cannabis plants is part of the first valuation analysis carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Research (Iniap). It is estimated that in the summer of 2021 the research carried out will already offer results on the legal development of hemp in Ecuador, with a view to its production.

The cannabis, soon, will be harvested and will go to the next phase: drying in the dark, according to Jorge Merino, a researcher from the Santa Catalina Experimental Station. After this process, the cannabis will be analyzed in a laboratory with a mass chromatograph to separate the components and thus be able to quantify them.

The tests, as indicated in the article, will be carried out in different areas: two in Imbabura and one in Sangolquí.

Scientists observe the progress of the tests carried out, as does Felipe Samaniego, who explains to El Comercio that “fabrics, chocolates, cosmetics and more products are made from hemp. It is estimated that in 2022 the local industry will manufacture products and export them”.

The cost of the licenses to develop this industry was approved and it is now the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) that implements the procedures.

If you want to read the full article, click here

Regulatory improvement based on the identification, review, and elimination of market entry barriers

mejora-normativa-basada-en-la-identificacion-revision-y-eliminacion-de-barreras-de-entrada-al-mercado

The Superintendency of Market Power Control (SCPM) published the “Methodology for the identification, review, and elimination of regulatory barriers” on November 5, 2020. It will serve as a guide to remove regulatory barriers to promote the participation of various operators in the market.

The Constitution establishes the principle of the prevalence of public interest over private interest as a guide for state and social activity and recognizes the right of people to develop economic activities, individually or collectively, in accordance with the principles of solidarity, social and environmental responsibility and the power of State intervention in economic activities to promote forms of production that ensure the welfare of the population and discourage those that violate their rights or those of nature.

State intervention through the regulation of economic activities is legitimate as long as it achieves a balance of these guarantees and powers, in the sense that the regulatory restrictions imposed on the entry and permanence of economic operators in the different markets are useful, reasonable, proportionate, and sufficient to guarantee public interest but not constituting an entry barrier for the development of efficient markets.

The methodology developed by the SCPM is intended to promote free competition and market efficiency, by verifying the legitimacy of regulatory barriers and, based on this analysis, the subsequent proposal for regulatory improvements or their elimination.

The procedure comprises two phases: on the one hand, the test of legality, in which the authority’s faculties to issue the regulation under analysis are verified, and then the coherence of said regulation with the law in force, in consideration of the hierarchy of the norms determined in the Constitution. If it is determined that the regulation is illegal in the first phase, either because the authority did not have the faculty to issue it or because it contradicts a regulation of higher hierarchy, the SCPM must propose its elimination.

If the regulation passes the test of legality, in the second phase, the SCPM must weigh the reasonableness and proportionality of the restriction it imposes, against the protected legal good: the public interest. For this analysis, the SCPM must determine, in the following order:

  • The appropriateness of the measure imposed by the regulation to achieve the purpose it pursues. That is, if the means employed – the restriction imposed – is indeed useful to protect the public interest.
  • The need for the measure: At this point, it must be determined if there are less restrictive alternative measures useful to achieve the goal.
  • The proportionality of the measure in the strict sense: In other words, the weighting aimed at balancing the degree of restriction imposed by the regulation and the importance of the legal good that it seeks to protect.

If, after this analysis, the SCPM determines that the rule that imposes the entry barrier is not reasonable, it will propose improvements or elimination, as appropriate.

Several countries in the region have recently initiated regulatory review processes to implement improvements to eliminate regulatory entry barriers that imply illegitimate restrictions on competitiveness. Colombia issued the Anti-paperwork Law in 2019. In Peru, citizens can report regulatory barriers that they consider illegitimate to the antitrust authority and its decision regarding, for example the non-applicability of such regulation (with general or particular effect, depending on the case) is binding on the administrative authorities that issued such regulation.

In Ecuador, the review of regulatory barriers is carried out solely by order of the Superintendent of Market Power Control or the Technical General Intendant, either: (i) ex officio (ii) based on a request of a public administration entity, or  (iii) in application of a recommendation issued by the SCPM study divisions. However, in the introduction of the Methodology for the identification, revision, and elimination of regulatory barriers, the Superintendent of Control of Market Power expressly encourages the public to collaborate to identify regulations that fall under these parameters. Since there is no specific procedure for the public to request the review of regulatory barriers, the request would be based on the petition right guaranteed in the Constitution.

We will have to wait for the practical application of the “Methodology for the identification, review, and elimination of regulatory barriers” to determine if the recommendations made by the SCPM have a sufficient ground of legality and reasonableness so that the corresponding authorities are compelled to implement them.

Ana Samudio
Associate en CorralRosales
asamudio@corralrosales.com

Idealex – Teleworking and Information Security

idealex-teleworking-and-information-security-lawyers-ecuador

DETAILS

DATE: 24-11-2020

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Rafael Serrano

MEDIA: Idealex

Our associate Rafael Serrano has written an article in the Idealex about ‘Teleworking and Information Security’ due to the large increase in people changing their way of work because of the pandemic. In his article, Serrano analyzes “the risks of telework related to one of the main assets of companies -information- and to provide efficient technical and legal tools to mitigate these risks”.

As detailed in the article, it is more difficult for an employer to know how the company’s information is handled by staff teleworking since he is not in the same place as his employees. Thus, he must pay greater attention to the protection of the information and labor tools provided. To do this, the employer must take appropriate security measures for this new situation.

“In this sense, information security must comply with three essential parameters: integrity, confidentiality and availability. Integrity implies that the information is correct, and has not been deleted or modified without the authorization of the owner. Confidentiality refers to the fact that the information can only be accessed by people who are authorized to access it. Lastly, availability means that information can be accessed when needed. ”Says Serrano.

Employers must take legal and technical measures to protect the information from any danger that may arise based on the three parameters described above.

The technical measures include the use of programs, systems, or devices aimed to preserve the information. The legal measures include the use of “the different instruments to have a complete information protection policy” by employers.

It is important to preserve the value of the company’s information.

If you want to read the full article, click here

Arbitration in investment contracts

arbitraje-en-los-contratos-de-inversion-jimmy-rodriguez-abogados-ecuador

The economic crisis, worsened by the pandemic, has forced Ecuador to place greater emphasis on its interest in attracting national and foreign investment. Several measures and mechanisms have been designed to achieve this objective. Among these mechanisms, the investment contract draws the attention of several investors since it offers stability in tax incentives[1] and, tax stability for contracts that exceed US $ 100 million, and large-scale mining projects. Another feature of the investment contract, which attracts investors, is the possibility of using arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

In August 2018, the Law for Productive Development, Attraction of Investments, Employment Generation, Stability and Fiscal Balance amended the Code of Production, Trade and Investment (COPCI) in order to force the State to agree to arbitration to resolve disputes generated in investment contracts[2] and also to agree to arbitration in investment contracts that exceed US $ 10 million[3].

The first unnumbered article included after article 16 of the COPCI provides: “Investment contracts.- The Ecuadorian Government shall agree to national or international arbitration to resolve disputes generated through investment contracts, in accordance with the Law.”

As a general rule, in order for two or more parties to be able to submit their disputes to the arbitration jurisdiction, the manifestation of that will is required. Unless stipulated in international instruments, article 42 of the Arbitration and Mediation Law requires the express authorization of the Office of the Attorney General for an entity of the Ecuadorian public sector to submit to international arbitration. In light of this, it is worth asking, could the Attorney General refuse to accept arbitration as a mechanism for the resolution of disputes in investment contracts? In an investment contract without an arbitration clause, is the State obliged to submit to arbitration a dispute arising from that contract?

In cases of disputes between investors and countries with legal provisions similar to those mentioned above, investment arbitration case-law favors arbitration. In the award of jurisdiction for the case of Tradex Hellas S.A. v. Republic of Albania, the arbitration tribunal considered that the consent of the State to submit disputes to arbitration jurisdiction was included in its legislation, when it stated:

“… although consent by written agreement is the usual method of submission to ICSID jurisdiction, it can now be considered as established and not requiring further reasoning that such consent can also be effected unilaterally by a Contracting State in its national laws the consent becoming effective at the latest if and when the foreign investor files its claim with ICSID making use of the respective national law. Therefore, the 1993 Law together with Tradex’s Request for Arbitration must be considered as sufficient consent (…).”[4]

In the case Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. the Republic of Georgia the court found that despite the absence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties, the Georgia Investment Law contained a written offer to submit the dispute – among others – to the jurisdiction of ICSID, and that this constitutes written consent:

“Here, at the time that the Claimant filed its Request for Arbitration on December 3, 1999, there was (a) no bilateral investment treaty in force between Ireland and Georgia and (b) no written agreement between the Parties that submitted disputes to ICSID jurisdiction. Accordingly, the question becomes whether Article 16(2) of the 1996 Georgia Investment Law, in spite of Article 19 of the earlier 1994 Georgia Concession Law, did constitute Georgia’s written offer to submit this dispute to ICSID, which offer was later accepted by the Claimant when it commenced this arbitration.”[5]

In the case of Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. the Arab Republic of Egypt[6], the arbitral tribunal concluded that the phrase “shall be resolved”, referring to disputes, is a mandatory provision.

In light of these arbitration awards, the provision contained in the first unnumbered article included after article 16 of COPCI has two characteristics. The first is a mandatory provision for the State and, the second is an offer to submit to arbitration, which can be made effective at the time of initiating an arbitration procedure.

In conclusion: there are solid legal grounds for determining that any dispute arising from an investment contract should be submitted to arbitration jurisdiction, even if the respective contract does not contain an express convention on that matter.

[1] Specifically, stability in the exoneration of the Tax on the Outflow of Foreign Currency for the distribution of dividends and importation of capital goods for the term of the contract

[2] First unnumbered after article 16 of the COPCI

[3] Second unnumbered after article 16 of the COPCI: “Arbitration.- For investment contracts that exceed ten million dollars of the United States of America, the State must agree to national or international arbitration in law, in accordance with the law. […] ”

[4] Decision on Jurisdiction Tradex Hellas SA v Republic of Albania, ICSID ARB /, 1996

[5] 94/2Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. Republic of Georgia ICSID Case No. ARB / 00/1, 2001

[6] Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB / 84/3,

Jimmy Rodríguez
Associate at CorralRosales
jirodriguez@corralrosales.com

Criterios Digital – The registration of a color as a trademark

Criterios-Digital-trademark-lawyers-Ecuador

DETAILS

DATE: 29-10-2020

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Katherine González

Katherine González, one of our associates whose field of specialty is Intellectual Property, has written an article for the medium “Criterios Digital”. In her article, she analyzes the possibility of registering a color as a trademark in the Andean Community.

Her article begins by offering a brief description of what a brand is to guide the reader on what to read next: “A brand is any sign capable of graphic representation, which can distinguish a product or service in the market.

“It also informs that “the Andean community norm provides for the possibility of registering as a trademark a color delimited by a shape, or a combination of colors. Thus, it is possible to register a trademark made up of only one color as long as it is included in some line, shape, or silhouette. Though the trademark shouldn’t fall in any of the grounds of irregularity provided for in the Law.”

As reported by the Andean Community Court of Justice, the use of color must be arbitrary so that, in this way, the business origin can be identified through it.

In the article, González clarifies that if the color is not delimited in any way, it can not be registered since a single person cannot be allowed to own a color as such; this would give a person “an inordinate competitive advantage” and “would significantly affect the access of third parties to the market.”

Later in her article, our associate points out that when examining the registration of a trademark made up of a color, the Intellectual Property Office must take the following things into account: the applicable legal elements, the real context of the market in which the trademark, once registered, will begin to work, and “the principle of primacy of reality”.

If you want to see the full article, click here.

Lexology Getting The Deal Through – Tax Controversy 2021

lexology-getting-the-deal-through-controversia-fiscal-2021_abogados_ecuador

DETAILS

DATE: 17-11-2020

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Andrea Moya

-Francisco Rosales

Lexology Getting The Deal Through (GTDT) published the eighth edition of Tax Controversy and Andrea Moya and Francisco Rosales, partners of CorralRosales, prepared the Ecuadorian chapter.

In the chapter, they answer essential questions related to tax law in Ecuador, especially the different mechanisms taxpayers have to challenge administrative acts issued by the Tax Authorities such as tax assessments or tax settlements. Additionally, they respond to questions about the legislation, the way it is organized and how to ensure compliance with tax laws and regulations, among other aspects.

Andrea with more than 10 years of experience, and Francisco with 40 years of trajectory, offer a precise point of view on the status of tax-related issues in Ecuador.

“There are two typical procedures that the tax authority applies to review a tax return: a difference notice and a tax assessment procedure.

The difference notice is a fast-track assessment procedure by which the tax authority notifies the taxpayer of any differences found in the tax return compared with information available to the tax authority and gathered from third parties […].

The tax assessment procedure is initiated with a formal notice issued by the tax authority by which it requires information from the taxpayer and from third parties and issues a draft of the tax assessment. Likewise, the taxpayer may either pay the amount established by the authority or provide sufficient evidence to challenge the differences noted by the tax authority within 20 working days. If the tax is not paid or if the tax authority considers that the differences have not been duly justified it will issue a formal tax assessment.” indicated our partners for the publication of GTDT.

If you want to see the full chapter, click here.

New employment agreement modalities

nuevas-modalidades-para-la-contratacion-laboral-noviembre-2020-redes-abogados-ecuador
The Ministry of Labor (“MdT”) has regulated the following employment agreement modalities:
1. PRODUCTION AGREEMENT
(MDT-2020-220) 
– Sector: Productive sectors.
– Term: For the duration of the work, service, or activity to be performed; continuously or discontinuously, for up to 1 year, renewable for an additional year. If this period is exceeded, the employment relationship becomes an open-term agreement. A 90 day trial period may be agreed.
– Work day: The working days will be carried out as part-time or ordinary with a maximum of 40 hours per week that may be distributed in no more than 6 days a week. If the activities require uninterrupted services, the parties may agree on consecutive days of up to 20 successive working days.
– Termination of the agreement: It will end upon the conclusion of the term or the contracted activity. If the unilateral decision of the employer terminates the employment relationship before the agreed term, the worker will be entitle to severance.
– SUT registration: Within a period of 15 days upon its execution.
2. SPECIAL AGREEMENT FORTOURISM AND / OR CULTURAL AND CREATIVE SECTORS
(MDT-2020-221)
– Sector: Tourism, cultural and creative.
– Term: For the duration of the work, service, or activity to be performed; continuously or discontinuously, for up to 1 year, renewable for an additional year. If this period is exceeded, the employment relationship becomes an open-term agreement. A 90 day trial period may be agreed.
– Work day: The working days will be carried out as part-time or regular with a maximum of 40 hours per week that may be distributed in no more than 6 days a week. If the activities require uninterrupted services, the parties may agree on 20 to 70 consecutive days. Shifts that exceed 20 continuous days must be registered in the Ministry of Labor.
– Termination of the agreement: It will end upon the conclusion of the term or the contracted activity. If the unilateral decision of the employer terminates the employment relationship before the agreed term, the worker will be entitle to severance.
– SUT registration: Within a period of 15 days upon its execution.
3. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AGREEMENT
(MDT-2020-222)
– Sector: Employers registered in the National Registry of Entrepreneurship (RNE).
– Term: Up to 1 year, renewable up to the term of registration in the RNE. If this period is exceeded, the employment relationship becomes an open-term agreement. A 90 day trial period may be agreed.
– Work day: The working days will be carried out as part-time or regular with a maximum of 40 hours per week that may be distributed in no more than 6 days a week. If the activities require the provision of uninterrupted services, the parties may agree on consecutive days of up to 20 successive working days.
– Termination of the agreement: It will end upon the conclusion of the term. If the unilateral decision of the employer terminates the employment relationship before the agreed term, the worker will be entitle to severance.
– SUT registration: Within 15 days upon its execution along with the certificate issued by the RNE.
4. AGREEMENT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
(MDT-2020-223) 
– Sector: All sectors.
– Agreement for young people: Work agreement aimed to  promote the employment of young people up to 26 years of age.
– Agreement for young people: under academic education: The purpose of this agreement is to promote the employment of young people up to 26 years old who are studying at any educational level. Their remuneration may not be less than US$333.32.
– Work day: The working days will be carried out as part-time or regular with a maximum of 40 hours per week. If the activities require the provision of uninterrupted services, the parties may agree on consecutive days of up to 20 successive working days.
– Term: For the duration of the work, service or activity to be carried out; continuously or discontinuously, for up to 1 year, renewable for an additional year, or until the worker reaches 26 years of age. If they exceed this period, the employment relationship becomes an open-term agreement. A 90 day trial may be agreed.
– Termination of the agreement: It will end upon the conclusion of the term or the contracted activity. If the unilateral decision of the employer terminates the employment relationship before the agreed term, the worker will be entitle to severance.
– SUT registration: Within a period of 15 days upon its execution.

 

Do you want to receive our newsletters with information like the one you just read?
Click here and subscribe.

DISCLAIMER: The preceding text has been prepared for general information purposes only. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any given situation requires the specific opinion and view of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

Conditions for filing customs import declarations

presentacion-de-declaraciones-aduaneras-noviembre-2020-redes-abogados-ecuador

On November 4, 2020 the National Court of Justice issued a ruling within the judicial process 17751-2020-00001 by which it declared that the Regulation SENAE-SENAE-2019-0049-RE (Regulation) issued on June 26, 2019 by the General Director of the Customs Authority was void.

The Regulation established that importers were not able to file customs import declarations if they had any unpaid obligations with the Tax or Customs Authorities. The National Court of Justice resolved that this condition could not be established by a regulation, since it exceeds the legal power of the general director of the Customs Authority.

Once the Regulation has been declared void, importers may file customs import declarations even if they have outstanding obligations with the Tax or Customs Authorities.

 

Do you want to receive our newsletters with information like the one you just read?
Click here and subscribe.

DISCLAIMER: The preceding text has been prepared for general information purposes only. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any given situation requires the specific opinion and view of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

1 2 3 9