370 / 432
R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 79, p. 348 - 376, Maio/Agosto 2017
370
an unprecedented diffuse-rights suit into them. In so doing, it would be acting
against cardinal civil-law tenets, which command strict adherence to the letter
of the Code,
98
as well as expressly condemn the retroactive application of laws.
99
At this point, the suitor might turn her attention to Article 2236 of
the Civil Code.
100
She might note that this provision entitles any person
to file a popular action in order to remove a contingent harm, even if the
drafters had probably not anticipated the possibility of application to the
case at hand. She may insist that legal institutions require updating and
evolution and conclude that this popular action lies in environmental cases.
Indeed, the Ecuadorian Civil Code, like many of its counterparts
in the region, establishes a series of such private-law popular actions
for the enforcement of diffuse rights under specific circumstances.
101
Specifically, Article 2236, like its equivalents elsewhere, authorizes “a
popular action in cases in which, because of someone’s imprudence
or negligence, a contingent harm threatens an indeterminate number
of people.”
102
It requires a precisely identified contingent harm,
103
in
addition to contemplating only injunctive remedies for the purpose of
removing the danger at stake.
104
The hypothesized complaint would presumably fail to meet these
requirements. In particular, it does not allege the right kind of injury or pray
for the right type of relief. As a result, the provision at stake would evidently
not apply to the dispute at hand.
98
See, e.g.
,
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Ecuad.) (2005), art. 18.
99
Id.
art. 7.
100
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Ecuad.) (2005), art. 2236.
See infra
note 101 and accompanying text (discussing the popular actions estab-
lished by this article, as well as by similar provisions in other Spanish American civil codes).
101
See
Oquendo,
supra
note 92, IV(E)(3) (exploring popular actions under the Civil Code in various Latin
American jurisdictions).
102
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Ecuad.) (2005), art. 2236 (“Por regla general se concede acción popular en todos los casos de daño contin-
gente que por imprudencia o negligencia de alguno amenace a personas indeterminadas.”).
See also
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Chile) (1857),
art. 2333;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Colom.) (1887), art. 2359;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(El Salv.) (1859), art. 2084.
103 These actions have a preventive character.
See generally
José Luis Diez Schwerter & Verónica Pía Delgado Schneider,
Algunas útiles herramientas olvidadas en nuestra práctica del “derecho de daños,”
214
R
ev
. D
cho
. U
niv
. C
oncepción
143, 144-48
(§ 2) (2003) (“Popular Preventive Actions”); Francisco de la Barra Gili,
Responsabilidad extracontractual por daño ambiental: El
problema de la legitimación activa
, 29
R
ev
. C
hilena
D
cho
.
367, 401-02 (§ 2.5.3) (2002) (“inhibitory mechanism”; “purpose
of preventing a contingent harm”);
A
rturo
A
lessandri
,
D
e
la
responsabilidad
extracontractual
en
el derecho
civil
chileno
218 (III(3))
(1983). As such, they target the party who is in charge and, consequently, in a position to prevent
the contingent harm. Someone who has no control cannot possibly avert that harm and therefore is not subject to suit.
104 The Article has “the purpose of preventing a contingent harm” and entitles plaintiffs “to appear before a judge so
that he can issue an order to forestall [the contingent harm].” Barra Gili,
supra
note 102, at 401 (§ 2.5.3) (“para ocurrir ante
el juez a fin de que ordene hacerlo desaparecer”);
A
lessandri
,
supra
note 102, at 218
(III(3))
. “A possible or hypothetical
harm, based on suppositions or conjectures, . . . does not give rise to a right to indemnification.”
Id
. at 218
(III(3)) (“
Un
daño eventual, hipotético, fundado en suposiciones o conjeturas, . . . no da derecho a indemnización.”)
.