El This article is a reflection on the necessity (or not) to apply, in the context of preliminary ruling interpretation (IP), governed by the Treaty establishing the Court of Justice of the Community Andina de Nations (TJCA), the doctrine of the act clarified. As we know, the treaty in question created the preliminary ruling interpretation. this consists of the possibility for judges from member countries of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) to consult the ECJ, the interpretation of a provision of Community law, in the event that those judges are ruling on a case in which they must apply CAN legal provisions, or at least the parties are in dispute such implementation. National judges are obliged to carry out such a consultation at all situations in which the judgment delivered by them is not amenable appeal, in accordance with the relevant national law. In the rest of the such cases are optional for internal judges. In this context, the work deals with whether, in the event that the consultation from the national court to the ECJ, such a requirement should be mandatory. to assign when the Court has ruled on the matter on several occasions, by means of a prior IP, in a case which has de facto analogy and de jure.