Author: dev_

The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) announced the entry into force of MEF Resolution No. 337/2026 (the “Resolution”), which sets forth supplementary provisions for the management of communications filed by obligated parties pursuant to Law No. 6446/2019, as well as for compliance with the accountability and transparency obligations applicable to Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) subject to Law No. 7363/2024.

The regulation will be implemented through the Integrated Administrative Registry Management System (SIARA) and is intended to operationalize the mechanisms for the filing, recording, and disclosure of information required under the applicable legal framework.

Key aspects of the Resolution:

• Establishes the applicable procedures for the management of communications and filings submitted through SIARA.
• Approves the forms that NPOs must use to comply with accountability and transparency obligations.
• Determines the minimum information that must be reported by the entities subject to the regulation.
• Regulates specific matters concerning NPOs incorporated abroad that carry out activities subject to the regime established by Law No. 7363/2024.
• Defines the procedures and deadlines for compliance with the corresponding legal obligations.

This measure is part of the process of strengthening the mechanisms of oversight, transparency, and traceability of information administered by State-dependent public registries.

Obligations and Deadlines for Fiscal Year 2026

NPOs subject to Law No. 7363/2024 shall observe the following deadlines for the initial implementation of the regime:

1. First Accountability Report

• Reporting period: July 1 through December 31, 2026.
• Filing deadline: June 30, 2027.

2. First Transparency Disclosure

• Reporting period: July 1 through December 31, 2026.
• Filing deadline: January 31, 2027.

Subsequent accountability reports and transparency disclosures shall comply with the ordinary deadlines set forth in the Resolution and other applicable regulatory provisions.

Practical Implications for Organizations

The entities subject to this regulation should promptly review their internal corporate governance, administration, and document management processes in order to ensure:

• The adequate collection and retention of the required information.
• The preparation of reports in accordance with the official forms approved by the MEF.
• The implementation of internal control mechanisms to evidence compliance with transparency and accountability obligations.
• The uploading and filing of information within the established deadlines through the SIARA platform.

Failure to comply with these obligations may result in administrative observations and the imposition of sanctions provided for under applicable law.

1. Client Context and Project Objective

We advised an engineering and electrical infrastructure company on the legal feasibility of developing a utility-scale solar photovoltaic project in Paraguay under the private initiative Public-Private Partnership (PPP) regime, in combination with the recently enacted Renewable Non-Conventional Energy (RNCE) framework.

The project contemplates an estimated investment of USD 23 million and includes the development of a solar power plant, a dedicated electrical substation and a high-voltage transmission line. Its business model combines the long-term sale of electricity to ANDE with direct supply to a Large Consumer, requiring analysis of the interaction between both regulatory schemes.

Our engagement focused on assessing the legal feasibility of the project, identifying the principal interactions between the applicable regulatory frameworks, analysing key bankability considerations, and preparing a regulatory roadmap for the potential submission of the private initiative to the competent authorities.

2. Our Role and Scope of Advice

Our Infrastructure and Energy team acted as legal counsel throughout the regulatory structuring phase of the project. Our work included:

a. Analysing the applicable regulatory framework, including the interaction between Law No. 7452/2025 on Public-Private Partnerships and its Implementing Decree No. 5441/2026, Law No. 7599/2025 on Renewable Non-Conventional Energy and its Implementing Decree No. 6034/2026—issued during the course of our engagement—and Law No. 966/1964 (ANDE's Organic Charter).

b. Preparing a regulatory memorandum intended to form the legal component of the pre-feasibility study required under the PPP regime for a potential submission to the General Directorate of Public Investment (DGIP) of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. The memorandum addresses the project's regulatory eligibility, the Special Purpose Vehicle structure required under the applicable regimes, the interaction between the different regulatory frameworks, and relevant bankability considerations.

c. Analysing project finance-related issues, including the guarantee mechanisms available under the PPP Law, lenders' step-in rights, the structure of a potential Direct Agreement, the trust structures available under both regulatory regimes, and the legal framework governing financial close.

d. Updating the regulatory analysis following the enactment of Implementing Decree No. 6034/2026, assessing its implications for the legal and commercial structure of the project.

e. Advising on the contractual interaction between the future PPP Agreement and the RNCE Connection and Supply Agreement, including observations regarding term, renewal, asset reversion, and tariff mechanisms.

3. Key Legal Challenges

The project raised several regulatory issues requiring an integrated legal analysis.

Interaction between three regulatory regimes. The proposed structure needed to comply simultaneously with the PPP framework, the RNCE regime and ANDE's Organic Charter, each of which pursues different regulatory objectives and contains distinct legal mechanisms. The analysis focused, among other matters, on ANDE's dual role as contracting authority and electricity purchaser, the interaction between the pricing mechanisms under both regimes, and the scope of ANDE's statutory distribution monopoly.

Regulatory developments during the engagement. At the outset of the engagement, the RNCE Law had not yet been regulated. The subsequent enactment of Implementing Decree No. 6034/2026 required the regulatory analysis to be updated in order to incorporate the new provisions and identify the issues that remained subject to further interpretation.

Dual commercial model. The client's proposal to combine electricity sales to ANDE with direct supply to a Large Consumer raised several regulatory questions, including the characterization of firm and interruptible supply, the use of a single RNCE licence for different voltage levels, and the interaction between the freely negotiated pricing mechanisms under the RNCE regime and the tariff approval requirements applicable to PPP projects.

Project finance considerations. The bankability analysis was conducted in the context of two recently enacted regulatory regimes with no transactional precedents in Paraguay. This required assessing the compatibility of the domestic legal framework with financing mechanisms commonly used in international project finance transactions, including step-in rights, Direct Agreements, debt service reserve arrangements (DSRA), take-or-pay obligations and lender protections.

Institutional coordination. The project required consideration of the sequential involvement of several public authorities—including the DGIP, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, ANDE, the Executive Branch, the Office of the Attorney General, the Vice Ministry of Mines and Energy, the National Council of Public Enterprises, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADES), and the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC)—as well as the regulatory approvals required at each stage of the process.

4. Current Status of the Engagement

The regulatory memorandum and the supporting legal analyses were prepared and delivered to assist the client in evaluating the project's legal feasibility and its potential structuring under the PPP framework.

The work product provides the client with:

• An integrated analysis of the three applicable regulatory frameworks, identifying their principal points of interaction, potential areas of regulatory tension and key considerations for structuring the project.
• A regulatory memorandum intended to serve as the legal component of the pre-feasibility study, should the client decide to proceed with the submission of a private initiative before the General Directorate of Public Investment.
• An assessment of key project finance considerations, including the principal guarantee mechanisms available under the applicable legislation and the regulatory issues relevant to a potential project finance structure. project finance.
• A regulatory roadmap identifying the principal stages of the approval process, the competent authorities, the applicable regulatory requirements and the legal issues likely to arise during subsequent phases of the project.
• An evaluation of the impact of Implementing Decree No. 6034/2026 on the legal and contractual structure of the project, including the regulatory issues addressed by the new regulation and those that remain subject to future interpretation or regulatory development.

Throughout the engagement, our team worked closely with the client and its technical and financial advisers, updating the regulatory analysis as the legal framework evolved and preparing documentation intended to support the client's ongoing assessment and structuring of the project.

Through Resolution No. 8, Minutes No. 31, dated July 13, 2026, the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Paraguay (“BCP”) approved the new Regulation establishing the National Payments System Fee Framework (the “Regulation”), aligning the existing regulatory framework with Law No. 7503/2025 “National Payments System”.

Unlike the previous regime, which was limited to certain services provided through the Paraguayan Payment System (“SIPAP”), the Regulation significantly broadens its scope of application, encompassing not only services processed through SIPAP, but also acquiring, network operation and processing services within the card payments ecosystem, as well as payment services involving debit and/or credit transactions to accounts carried out through proprietary systems authorized by the BCP.

One of the Regulation's main objectives is to prevent regulatory arbitrage between functionally equivalent services and to ensure that fees adequately reflect the economic nature and costs associated with each service. In particular, the BCP identified that certain transactions initiated through QR codes were being marketed as debit card payments when, in fact, they correspond to account-to-account transfers with considerably simpler and less costly operational structures.

In this context, the Regulation introduces a differentiated fee regime for the various payment services. Among its most significant developments is the establishment of a maximum fee cap of 1.5% for payment initiation services, payment requests and direct debits carried out through proprietary systems, applicable exclusively to the beneficiary merchant.

Another noteworthy aspect is the expansion of the entities subject to the Regulation. The new fee framework applies to payment service providers regulated by the BCP.

Finally, although the Resolution entered into force upon its publication, the BCP granted entities a transition period until January 1, 2027, to implement the adjustments necessary for compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Regulation may trigger the application of the sanctions set forth under the applicable legal framework.

Through Resolution No. 13, Act No. 7, dated April 8, 2026, the Banco Central del Paraguay (“BCP”) approved the Regulation on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”), formally incorporating this indicator as a key tool for liquidity risk management in financial intermediation entities (the “Regulation”).

The purpose of the Regulation is to establish the obligation to calculate and maintain the LCR, understood as the indicator that measures an entity’s capacity to meet its net cash outflows over a 30-day period through the holding of sufficient high-quality liquid assets.s

From a technical standpoint, the LCR is defined as the ratio between high-quality liquid assets and projected net cash outflows for such period, which must be equal to or greater than 1. This implies that entities must maintain an adequate level of liquidity to withstand stress scenarios.

One of the most relevant aspects of the Regulation is the definition of the components of the ratio, particularly High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA), which are classified into different categories based on their level of liquidity and credit quality.

Additionally, the Regulation sets out specific criteria for calculating cash outflows and inflows under a 30-day stress scenario, including differentiated treatment for retail and wholesale deposits, wholesale funding, derivatives, and other relevant exposures.

With respect to its implementation, a progressive phase-in schedule is established, under which entities must gradually meet the minimum required ratio: 50% as of May 31, 2026; 70% as of August 31, 2026; 90% as of November 30, 2026; and 100% as of March 31, 2027.

Furthermore, in the event of non-compliance with the minimum ratio, entities must justify the causes of the shortfall and submit a remediation plan within a maximum period of 90 days, failing which such non-compliance may be deemed a serious breach under applicable regulations.

Through Resolution SV.SG. No. 0022/2025, dated December 11, 2025, the Superintendency of Securities (“SIV”) of the Banco Central del Paraguay (“BCP”) approved the Regulation of the Central Information System for the Securities and Products Market (the “Regulation”), introducing changes to the current framework governing the submission of regulatory information.

The Central Information System is mandatory for broker-dealers, fund management companies, stock exchanges, central securities depositories, and other market entities and participants as determined by the SIV.

The Regulation establishes a single and mandatory standard for the submission of information by supervised entities. From an operational standpoint, the Central Information System operates as a centralized platform through which entities must submit their reports in standardized formats and in accordance with uniform technical specifications.

Additionally, the Regulation introduces stringent data quality standards, including the obligation to perform pre-submission validations, the automatic rejection of files containing critical errors, and requirements regarding the traceability and completeness of the information. In this regard, supervised entities will bear direct responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, and quality of the data submitted.

For many companies, retaining legal counsel is still seen as a response to a specific dispute. From a management standpoint, however, it is a far broader decision: it involves anticipating risks, aligning expectations, and properly structuring the relationship with a strategic provider.

In that context, there is one point that tends to be underestimated until it creates a problem of its own: the professional fees of the legal team.

In practice, a large share of the disagreements between companies and outside counsel do not arise from the merits of the matter, but from a lack of clarity about the scope of the work, the stages involved, the associated costs, and the form of compensation. For this reason, properly defining fees from the outset is not an administrative detail; it is a concrete preventive measure.

The first rule: in Paraguay this matter cannot be freely waived

This issue is of particular importance in Paraguay because Law No. 1376/88 does not leave the matter entirely to the will of the parties. The statute sets a minimum protective framework for professional fees and provides for the nullity of any agreement setting fees below the statutory fee schedule, as well as of any advance waiver, whether total or partial, of such fees.

In business terms, this means that it is not enough to rely on informal arrangements, verbal agreements, or improvised payment schemes. If the agreement contradicts the legal minimum, it may be ineffective. Consequently, a company should not assume that a seemingly convenient agreement protects it against a later claim.

It is not just about price: it is about predictability

The legal framework does not merely set limits. It also provides objective criteria for assessing fees, considering, among other factors, the amount in dispute, its complexity, the quality of the work, the stages completed, and the effectiveness of the work performed.

For a company, this carries an important practical consequence: the analysis of a fee proposal should not focus solely on the apparent cost, but on whether that scheme is consistent with the nature of the matter, the time it will require, and the level of specialization needed.

Reducing the conversation to “how much the lawyer charges” is usually a bad sign. The more useful question is a different one: whether the agreement is sufficiently well structured to avoid future contingencies..

What should be defined before retaining counsel

From a preventive perspective, every company should seek to ensure that the agreement with its legal advisor clearly establishes certain essential points: which services are included, which fall outside the scope, what will happen if the matter expands or extends to new stages, how costs will be handled, and what rules will apply in the event of early termination or successful completion of the engagement.

The same applies to monthly or recurring advisory arrangements. When a company retains permanent legal support, contractual clarity is indispensable to avoid gray areas: what the retainer covers, what is billed separately, and under what circumstances the compensation may be revised.

Loosely defined agreements may seem functional at first, but they tend to become problematic when the case grows more complex, drags on, or changes in scale.

The most common mistake: believing that fees are discussed at the end

One of the most frequent mistakes is to postpone this conversation, as if it were a secondary issue. In reality, when the matter is not properly defined at the outset, the risk does not disappear: it simply shifts to the end of the relationship, when there is far less room to align expectations.

Even in litigation where the opposing party may be ordered to pay costs, a company should not assume that this automatically resolves its financial relationship with its own advisors. That point, too, must be expressly provided for.

Choosing well is also a compliance decision

In this context, retaining legal counsel should not be guided solely by the lowest bid. When the law imposes non-waivable minimums and a lack of clarity may give rise to later claims, the reasonable decision is to work with legal teams with a recognized track record and demonstrable experience.

This not only reduces the risk of conflict. It also improves planning, strengthens trust, and makes it possible to sustain more stable and efficient professional relationships.

A practical takeaway for companies

In Paraguay, professional fees are neither an ancillary point nor one entirely at the parties’ disposal. Law No. 1376/88 imposes limits that must be taken seriously: the law establishes that it is not valid to agree on fees below the legal minimum, nor to waive those rights in advance.

For companies, the key is to clarify from the outset, with the selected legal team, the scope of what has been budgeted, and to honor fee agreements clearly—because doing so not only avoids new disputes; it is also a concrete way to manage risk and protect the relationship with their strategic advisors.

1. Introduction

Workplace violence and harassment have received increasing attention from governments, international organizations, and employers due to their impact on workers’ health, dignity, and well-being.

At the international level, the adoption of the International Labour Organization’s Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) promoted the strengthening of regulatory frameworks aimed at preventing and addressing violence and harassment in the world of work, influencing several reforms implemented across the region.

In Paraguay, this issue was first addressed through Ministry of Justice and Labour Resolution No. 472/2012, which was subsequently replaced by Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security Resolution No. 388/2019 and, more recently, by Resolution No. 195/2026.

Against this backdrop, this benchmark aims to identify how different jurisdictions across the region are addressing this issue, as well as the principal obligations and measures currently being implemented by employers.

Furthermore, considering the recent entry into force of Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security Resolution No. 195/2026, the analysis seeks to identify the key aspects that companies in Paraguay should consider in order to comply with the new provisions established by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security (MTESS).

1. Evolution of the Regulatory Framework in Paraguay

Protection against violence, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace is grounded in the National Constitution, particularly in the principles of equality and non-discrimination, as well as in every person’s right to work under dignified and fair conditions. The Labour Code also recognizes the employer’s duty to respect workers’ dignity and maintain appropriate working conditions.

Specific regulation in this area has evolved through various administrative provisions. Among them, Ministry of Justice and Labour Resolution No. 472/2012 introduced definitions of workplace violence, mobbing, and sexual harassment, while also establishing internal complaint and investigation procedures for companies.

Subsequently, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security Resolution No. 388/2019 repealed the previous resolution and strengthened the institutional approach to this issue by creating the Office for the Assistance and Prevention of Workplace Violence and establishing a specific procedure for receiving and following up on complaints.

Finally, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security Resolution No. 195/2026, subsequently amended by Resolution No. 564/2026, further developed this regulatory framework by introducing specific obligations for employers regarding prevention, training, reporting channels, internal investigations, and the adoption of protocols for addressing situations involving workplace discrimination, violence, and harassment.

2. Regional Comparative Overview

Although Paraguay has progressively developed its regulatory framework on workplace violence and harassment, this process has not taken place in isolation. In recent years, several countries in the region have adopted measures aimed at preventing, investigating, and addressing these situations in the workplace, with varying levels of development and different regulatory approaches.

The following section presents a comparative analysis of the principal measures implemented across the region, with the aim of identifying key trends and providing context for the recent regulatory developments adopted in Paraguay.

Country	Ratification of ILO Convention No. 190	Requirement to Have a Protocol	Reporting Channels	Mandatory Training	Specific Regulations
Paraguay	No	Yes	MTESS; Company	Yes	MTESS Resolutions No. 195/2026 and No. 564/2026
Argentina	Yes	Partially	Secretariat of Labour, Employment and Social Security	Yes	Law No. 27,580; Resolution No. 685/2023; and provincial regulations
Uruguay	Yes	Not mandatory	Company; General Labour Inspectorate	Yes	Law No. 19,849; Decree No. 246/2024
Chile	Yes	Yes	Company; Labour Inspectorate	Yes	“Karin Law” No. 21,643
Brasil	No	Partially, through the Internal Commission for Accident Prevention (“CIPA”)	Company	Yes	Law No. 14,457/2022; Regulatory Standard NR-1
Bolivia	Yes	No	Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare	Yes	Law No. 348; Regulatory Resolution of the Ministry of Labour’s Board No. 196/21

Based on the analysis, the following observations can be made:

Although the countries analyzed regulate this issue differently and at varying levels of development, there is an increasingly clear regional trend toward the adoption of measures aimed at preventing workplace violence and harassment.

In this regard, the approach is no longer limited to responding to specific incidents after they occur. It also focuses on prevention through the implementation of internal protocols and policies, reporting channels, investigation procedures, and periodic employee training.

In Paraguay, this trend is reflected primarily in MTESS Resolutions No. 195/2026 and No. 564/2026, through which the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security established guidelines for the prevention and management of discrimination, violence, and harassment in the private sector.

3. New Requirements and Obligations in Paraguay

• Employers with more than 10 employees must implement an internal protocol for the prevention, handling, and investigation of workplace violence.
• Employers with 10 or fewer employees must adopt a zero-tolerance statement against workplace violence and harassment.
• Accessible and confidential reporting channels must be established and communicated to employees.
• A person, committee, or department must be appointed to implement the protocol and receive and manage complaints.
• Periodic training on workplace violence and harassment must be provided.
• Protocols must include measures aimed at preventing and managing violence committed by third parties connected to the employer’s activities, such as clients, users, or suppliers.
• The regulations introduce prevention and support measures for situations of domestic violence that may affect the workplace.
• The MTESS may inspect and verify compliance with, dissemination of, and effective implementation of the protocol.
• Employers have a six-month period, beginning on July 1, 2026, to comply with the resolution.
• Failure to comply with the obligations established under MTESS Resolutions No. 195/2026 and No. 564/2026 may be subject to inspection by the MTESS and may result in the sanctions provided for under applicable labour legislation.

4. Technical Considerations for Employers

In light of the new provisions introduced by MTESS Resolutions No. 195/2026 and No. 564/2026, employers are advised to assess, among other matters:

• Whether they are required to implement an internal protocol or a zero-tolerance statement, depending on the number of employees.
• The existence and adequacy of accessible and confidential internal reporting channels.
• The appointment of a person, committee, or department responsible for receiving, managing, and investigating complaints.
• The update of internal policies, protocols, and procedures relating to the prevention, handling, and investigation of workplace violence and harassment.
• The provision of periodic training for employees, supervisors, and middle management.
• Compliance with the adaptation period established by the MTESS and proper documentation of the measures adopted.

5. Conclusion

The regulatory developments observed in Paraguay and other countries across the region demonstrate the growing importance of mechanisms for preventing and managing workplace violence and harassment within organizations. In this regard, the recent amendments introduced in Paraguay reflect a broader regional trend toward strengthening measures for the prevention, handling, and investigation of these situations in the workplace.

Against this backdrop, employers are advised to review and adapt their internal protocols, policies, and procedures, including their reporting, investigation, and training mechanisms, in order to comply with the new regulatory requirements and strengthen the management of workplace violence and harassment.

Need Assistance? Our Labour and Employment team is available to advise on the review and implementation of protocols, training programs, reporting channels, and other measures required under the applicable regulations.

Paraguay da un paso decisivo hacia la energía renovable privada

El 19 de mayo de 2026, el Poder Ejecutivo promulgó el Decreto N° 6034/2026, que reglamenta la Ley N° 7599/2025 —conocida como la Ley ERNC—, dedicada a fomentar la generación de energía eléctrica a partir de fuentes renovables no convencionales no hidráulicas: solar, eólica, biomasa, entre otras.

¿Por qué importa? Porque Paraguay enfrenta un punto de inflexión. Se proyecta que hacia 2029–2030 el excedente histórico de las centrales hidroeléctricas binacionales comenzará a reducirse. La demanda eléctrica crece, y la diversificación de la matriz energética ya no es una opción: es una necesidad estratégica.

Este Decreto llena vacíos normativos que la Ley ERNC había dejado pendientes y establece reglas concretas para que el sector privado pueda generar y comercializar energía renovable. A continuación, lo que necesitás saber.

¿Quiénes pueden operar? Las cuatro figuras del mercado ERNC

La Ley ERNC habilita cuatro tipos de operadores —llamados Licenciatarios—, cada uno con su propio régimen de contratación y remuneración. El Decreto define el marco operativo de cada uno:

• Autogenerador ERNC: Produce energía para su propio consumo y puede vender sus excedentes a la ANDE o a grandes usuarios privados.
• Cogenerador ERNC: Similar al anterior, pero combina generación térmica industrial o comercial con generación eléctrica.
• Generador ERNC: Constituido exclusivamente para vender energía a la ANDE (mediante licitación pública) o a grandes usuarios.
• Exportador ERNC: Produce energía única y exclusivamente para exportación.

Cada figura tiene reglas propias: no todas las disposiciones del Decreto aplican de igual manera a todas.

Cómo se paga la energía: la Tarifa de Referencia ERNC

Para el Autogenerador y el Cogenerador que vendan excedentes a la ANDE, la remuneración se basa en la Tarifa de Referencia ERNC, fijada anualmente por el MOPC. El precio varía según el tipo de energía inyectada:

Interrumpible vs. No Interrumpible: ¿en qué se diferencian?

• Energía interrumpible —como la solar o la eólica sin almacenamiento—: el operador no garantiza suministro continuo. La remuneración equivale al Costo Medio de Generación (CMG) de la ANDE. Precio más bajo, pero mayor flexibilidad operativa.
• Energía no interrumpible: el operador garantiza suministro firme y permanente. La remuneración incluye CMG más potencia firme, servicios auxiliares y localización del punto de inyección. Precio potencialmente mayor, pero requiere sistemas de almacenamiento u otras fuentes de respaldo.

La elección entre una u otra modalidad impacta directamente la viabilidad económica de cada proyecto. El denominador común es el CMG, cuya metodología de cálculo aún no está definida —uno de los puntos pendientes más relevantes, como veremos más adelante.

El Generador ERNC: licitaciones y precio de referencia

Para los Generadores ERNC, el mecanismo es diferente y potencialmente más atractivo: el precio surge de un proceso competitivo de licitación pública, con el Precio de Referencia como techo máximo de adjudicación.

Ese precio de referencia es determinado por el MOPC considerando el tipo de fuente, la incorporación de sistemas de almacenamiento, la localización geográfica y el nivel de tensión de conexión. Opera como techo —no como precio fijo—, lo que preserva el incentivo competitivo.

Tres modalidades de contratación en las licitaciones

• Modalidad Abierta: Prevé una cantidad mínima de energía que la ANDE se obliga a comprar, y una cantidad máxima que el Generador ERNC debe estar en condiciones de suministrar.
• Modalidad de Cantidad Definida: Se fija un volumen exacto de energía a suministrar y adquirir. Mayor certeza, menor flexibilidad.
• Modalidad para Fuentes Interrumpibles: El Generador no asume obligación mínima de suministro. La ANDE adquiere toda la energía que el Generador pueda producir. Especialmente adecuada para fuentes variables como la solar.

Ganar una licitación: SOE, garantías y estructura

Sociedad Anónima de Objeto Específico (SOE) dentro de los 60 días hábiles desde que la adjudicación quede firme. Esa SOE será la parte contratante del proyecto.

Condiciones clave para la SOE:

• El adjudicatario debe mantener al menos el 51% de las acciones (el pliego de bases y condiciones puede elevar ese porcentaje).
• En caso de adjudicación en consorcio, la SOE debe constituirse con los mismos socios y en las mismas proporciones del consorcio.
• Previo a la firma del contrato, la SOE debe inscribirse como proveedor del Estado en la DNCP.

Las tres garantías obligatorias

• Garantía de mantenimiento de oferta: entre 0,5% y 5% del costo total estimado.
• Garantía de fiel cumplimiento — etapa de construcción: hasta el 5% del monto adjudicado, exigible antes de la firma.
• Garantía de fiel cumplimiento — etapa de operación: hasta el 5% del monto adjudicado, exigible antes del inicio del suministro. Tiene carácter decreciente.

Pueden constituirse mediante depósito, aval, fianza, carta de crédito stand-by o póliza de seguro, emitidas por entidades autorizadas por el Banco Central del Paraguay y la Superintendencia de Seguros.

Tres mecanismos clave para los inversores

1. Fideicomiso de Administración y Pagos ERNC

El Decreto estructura el fideicomiso destinado al pago del suministro ERNC, con el MEF como fideicomitente y la AFD como fiduciario. Declarado de utilidad pública y carácter prioritario, requiere que la ANDE lo dote con al menos 12 meses de anticipación a cada pago.

Punto importante: su constitución es optativa. Se activa únicamente cuando el pliego de licitación así lo contemple. Si no está previsto, el régimen de pago será el general de contrataciones públicas, con mayor exposición al riesgo presupuestario.

Alerta para inversores: el fideicomiso no cuenta con garantía soberana del Estado paraguayo. Los pagos están respaldados por la ANDE con sus propios recursos presupuestarios. Este será un punto crítico en los procesos de due diligence de financistas institucionales.

2. Cesión de derechos

Los contratos y las acciones de la SOE pueden cederse a terceros una vez iniciado el suministro, siempre que el cesionario acredite capacidad técnica y financiera, obtenga la Licencia ERNC y cuente con autorización previa de la ANDE. Este requisito puede generar complejidades en el contexto de step-in de acreedores ante incumplimientos, lo que debe ser contemplado en la estructuración de los contratos de financiamiento.

3. Arbitraje

Por primera vez en el régimen ERNC, el Decreto incorpora la posibilidad de pactar arbitraje institucional o ad hoc para resolver controversias contractuales. La sede es Asunción, con posibilidad de consensuar una sede en el extranjero cuando la envergadura del proyecto lo justifique. La ANDE es parte necesaria y la Procuraduría General de la República interviene como coadyuvante.

Este mecanismo es un avance significativo para la bancabilidad del régimen ante inversores y financistas internacionales.

Venta directa a grandes usuarios: el mercado privado

Una de las innovaciones más relevantes de la Ley ERNC —desarrollada operativamente por el Decreto— es la habilitación de la venta directa de energía renovable a Grandes Consumidores.

¿Quién califica? Toda persona física o jurídica con una demanda máxima igual o superior a 30 MW en una unidad consumidora. Por primera vez en Paraguay, grandes usuarios industriales o comerciales pueden adquirir energía renovable directamente de un generador privado, a precios libremente acordados.

Esta modalidad está disponible para Autogeneradores, Cogeneradores y Generadores ERNC. El instrumento jurídico es el Contrato de Compraventa ERNC, que debe registrarse ante la ANDE. Cuando la generación renovable no cubra toda la demanda del Gran Consumidor —lo que es habitual en fuentes variables como la solar—, este puede suscribir directamente con la ANDE un contrato para cubrir la diferencia.

Lo que aún falta: aspectos pendientes de definición

El Decreto es un hito importante, pero el pleno funcionamiento del mercado depende de la emisión de varios instrumentos normativos adicionales aún pendientes. Los más relevantes:

• CMG y Tarifa de Referencia: El Costo Medio de Generación (CMG) y la Tarifa de Referencia ERNC. La metodología de cálculo no está definida. En particular, se desconoce si la generación hidroeléctrica propia de la ANDE quedará incluida o excluida, lo que es determinante dado el bajo costo operativo de Itaipú y Yacyretá.
• Precio de Referencia para Generadores: El procedimiento para determinar el Precio de Referencia en licitaciones aún no fue establecido. Sin ese parámetro, los inversores no pueden estructurar financieramente sus proyectos.
• Clasificación de fuentes: El MOPC aún debe determinar qué fuentes califican como interrumpibles o no interrumpibles. Esto condiciona la modalidad de contratación y el nivel de remuneración. Para proyectos solares sin almacenamiento, la clasificación aún no es clara.
• Lineamientos de conexión al SIN: Los lineamientos técnico-administrativos para la conexión al SIN no han sido emitidos, lo que impide dimensionar con precisión costos y plazos de conexión.
• Proceso de otorgamiento de la Licencia ERNC: El VMME debe emitir la resolución que establezca requisitos y procedimientos para obtener la Licencia ERNC. Sin ella, el proceso de licenciamiento carece de plazos y criterios definidos.

Otras preguntas operativas aún abiertas: si el umbral de 30 MW del Gran Consumidor puede cubrirse de forma agregada entre varios licenciatarios; si un Generador puede optar por vender al Gran Consumidor en lugar de a la ANDE en períodos de precios desfavorables; y si el fideicomiso ERNC será activado en los procesos licitatorios en curso.

Takeaway

El Decreto N° 6034/2026 establece las bases operativas del mercado de energías renovables en Paraguay. Es un avance real: define figuras, modalidades de contratación, garantías, arbitraje y la posibilidad de venta directa a grandes usuarios. Pero el mercado no funcionará plenamente hasta que el MOPC, el VMME y la ANDE completen la emisión de los instrumentos normativos pendientes.

Para empresas, inversores y proyectos que apunten a este mercado, el momento de comenzar a estructurar es ahora.

Acceder al texto completo del Decreto N° 6034/26 → Decree No. 6034/26

Para más información sobre este Decreto o temas de energía, contactá a nuestro equipo: Rodolfo G. Vouga — rgvouga@vouga.com.py   |   Manuel Acevedo —macevedo@vouga.com.py | Lucas Rolón — lrolon@vouga.com.py 

"Paraguay has no express statute governing labor outsourcing. Legitimate outsourcing therefore demands a reality test, not a mere documentary review."

To date, Paraguay has no express statute governing labor outsourcing. This gap is far from trivial: our legal system requires recourse to general principles, analogous rules, and case-law criteria whose application is, by definition, less predictable. The result is an asymmetric legal risk—the contracting company may act fully convinced that its position is sound and yet be held jointly and severally liable for breaches committed by its outsourcing provider. In this sense, the absence of a specific statute is not a legal vacuum but fertile ground for the application of the protective principle. Labor judges do not wait for a statute in order to protect the worker; they have more than sufficient instruments in the Labor Code currently in force. For that reason, a company that outsources without proper due diligence does not shelter in the gap—it is exposed by it.

The joint and several liability of the contracting company in the context of labor outsourcing arises, in principle, where that company benefits from the work performed and the outsourcing provider fails to meet its obligations toward the workers. In that connection, we submit that there are four specific scenarios in which such liability is triggered. First, with respect to wages and severance, the principal company is liable for unpaid wages, the aguinaldo (annual bonus), vacation pay, and severance for dismissal where the provider fails to satisfy them; the sustenance nature of wages bars any requirement that the worker first exhaust remedies against the direct employer. Second, as regards social security contributions (IPS), the obligation is one of public policy and therefore entitles the institution to claim jointly and severally against the principal company for contributions not made. Third, the termination of the commercial relationship between the companies—where it brings about the dismissal of the outsourced workers—gives rise to joint and several liability for the corresponding settlements when the provider cannot demonstrate solvency. Finally, where a workplace accident or occupational illness occurs on the principal company's premises and that company failed to adopt the required preventive measures, joint and several liability also extends to the resulting civil liability.

Against that backdrop, and in view of the scenarios described, the contracting company must take minimum precautions to avoid being held jointly and severally liable alongside its provider, and must therefore exercise prior and rigorous diligence before entering into any civil outsourcing contract—verifying and ensuring that the provider has genuine financial solvency and can demonstrate compliance with minimum labor obligations, such as: a registered employer number, enrollment with the IPS and contributions in good standing, its own independent operating structure, and sufficient assets to answer to its workers. If the provider turns out to be a sham company, insolvent, or lacking a genuine structure, liability will fall directly and entirely on the contracting company, which will not be permitted to invoke the commercial contract to escape its labor liability.

Indeed, in any judicial disputes arising from outsourcing contracts, Paraguayan labor courts place particular emphasis on the principle of the primacy of reality—implicit in our labor framework through Article 5 of the Labor Code and Articles 18 et seq.—under which the truth of the facts prevails over the legal forms adopted by the parties.

Legitimate outsourcing therefore demands a reality test, not a mere documentary review: if the provider cannot operate for a single day without the resources, direction, or infrastructure of the principal company, the underlying relationship is an employment relationship disguised as a commercial contract. No contractual instrument can reverse that factual reality before a Paraguayan labor court; form yields to substance, and liability falls on whoever in fact exercises the power of direction over the worker.

Best Practices: How to Manage Labor Risk in Outsourcing

Well-managed outsourcing does not end with the signing of the commercial contract; it requires active intervention at three key moments in the life cycle of the relationship.

1. Before contracting: The contracting company should conduct full labor due diligence on the provider. This means, for example, requesting the IPS compliance certificates for the past twelve months, verifying that the provider maintains a payroll of workers under duly registered contracts, confirming its structural and economic independence from the principal company, and checking whether it has any record of labor claims. This step is not a mere formality—it is the first line of defense against a potential finding of joint and several liability.
2. At the time of contracting: The services agreement must go beyond regulating the commercial subject matter and incorporate, at a minimum, the following labor-protection clauses: an express obligation to comply with labor and social security law; an audit right for the principal company over compliance with those obligations; monthly delivery of proof of wage payments and IPS contributions; an indemnity clause in favor of the contracting company against claims by outsourced workers; a right to withhold payments upon proven breach; and a deterrent penalty clause. These provisions do not eliminate joint and several liability, which is a matter of public policy, but they build the contractual foundation for exercising the right of recourse in the event of a judgment and for mitigating exposure in potential disputes.
3. During performance of the contract:  Oversight cannot be sporadic or merely reactive. It is advisable to verify payrolls and wage payments monthly; to check IPS contributions quarterly through the Institute's online portal; to assess compliance with statutory benefits on a semi-annual basis; and to monitor for any new labor claims linked to the provider. Labor compliance is not an isolated act: it is a continuous process whose interruption can create exposure.

Training Outsourced Workers: A Strategic Tool for Defining the Relationship

The contracting company should implement training programs for outsourced workers providing services on its premises. While this practice is not expressly contemplated in the Labor Code, it has a solid foundation in Article 86 of the National Constitution (work under decent conditions), in the principle of good faith in contracting, and in the protective character of the labor framework.

Preventive management:by informing workers about the minimum wage, working hours, the IPS, safety, benefits, and avenues for redress, the principal company creates indirect oversight of the provider—the outsourced worker will themselves demand compliance.

Defining the relationship:training, properly documented, is evidence that the principal company never acted as a concealed employer and that it expressly acknowledged the employment relationship between the worker and their true employer, the provider.

The essential points to be covered are: (1) identification of the employer and the triangular structure of the outsourcing arrangement; (2) wage rights; (3) social security (IPS): enrollment, contributions, and verification; (4) working hours and rest periods; (5) health and safety; (6) severance and termination of the relationship; and (7) avenues for redress before the MTESS (Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security).

In that context, the essential documents required for the training are: a signed attendance sheet showing the date and contents; an express statement by the worker acknowledging the provider as their employer; the written materials provided; and an organized, accessible file. Training is not a shield. It does not eliminate joint and several liability, which is a matter of public policy; it does not cure fraudulent outsourcing; and it does not turn the contracting company into an employer. It is, however, a tool that, used correctly, mitigates exposure and demonstrates good faith—useful both where the relationship is genuine and, in the event of litigation, as valuable material for properly clarifying the case.

In this context, the program for training outsourced workers is the most innovative and, in practical terms, the most valuable proposal. It is not merely an expression of corporate good faith and social responsibility; it is a legally intelligent tool that defines relationships, generates evidence, and contributes to the effective fulfillment of the rights that the Paraguayan legal system guarantees to every worker, regardless of the contractual form under which they provide their services.

Finally, outsourcing can be a legitimate management tool when applied with diligence: the combination of rigorous due diligence, robust contracts, ongoing monitoring, and documented training significantly reduces the risk of labor contingencies, protects corporate reputation, and contributes to the effective fulfillment of labor rights in Paraguay.

La sindicalización en Paraguay ha transitado de un estigma social y empresarial a una realidad estructural que exige respuestas jurídicas y organizativas maduras por parte de las empresas. Lo que antes se vivía como un tabú y en muchos casos como una amenaza a ser neutralizada, hoy se presenta como una oportunidad para institucionalizar la convivencia laboral, mejorar la gobernanza interna y reducir riesgos legales y reputacionales.  Desde la experiencia práctica en derecho laboral y procesal laboral paraguayo, se propone un marco preliminar de acción para que las empresas transformen la relación con los sindicatos en un instrumento de estabilidad y productividad, sin renunciar a la defensa de sus intereses legítimos.

En primer lugar, es imprescindible partir del reconocimiento y respeto del marco normativo y de los principios que lo sustentan: la libertad sindical, la prohibición de la discriminación por actividad sindical y la garantía de la negociación colectiva. Cualquier conducta empresarial que pueda interpretarse como obstrucción, represalia o “descabezamiento” de liderazgos sindicales no solo vulnera derechos fundamentales, sino que también expone a la empresa a sanciones administrativas, a demandas individuales y colectivas, y a un daño reputacional de difícil reparación.

Por ello, sugerimos siempre que la postura corporativa sea de respeto formal y de disposición al diálogo, acompañada de reglas internas claras y de una estrategia preventiva documentada.

Desde la práctica, la primera recomendación es institucionalizar la relación con las organizaciones sindicales mediante políticas y protocolos escritos.  En ese sentido se sugiere contar con  un “Protocolo breve de Relaciones Colectivas o Gobernanza Laboral” (1 o 2 páginas) que reafirme el respeto a la libertad sindical y el compromiso de negociar de buena fe; designe un interlocutor único (RRHH + Asesor Jurídico) y un canal oficial para solicitudes sindicales con un plazo de respuesta razonable; registre cada reunión mediante un acta simple (fecha, asistentes, acuerdos) y mantenga un archivo mínimo de las gestiones; así como establezca un mecanismo de escalamiento claro que remita a conciliación administrativa o mediación si no hay acuerdo; todo ello sin pretender regular la autonomía interna del sindicato ni restringir derechos legales, y previa revisión legal del texto. Este documento no solo organiza la convivencia, sino que constituye una prueba esencial frente a inspecciones del Ministerio de Trabajo y en eventuales litigios.

Asimismo, negociar de buena fe es el principio operativo que guía la interacción entre empresa y sindicato. En términos prácticos, negociar de buena fe implica responder a convocatorias en plazos razonables, asistir a reuniones con representantes con facultades para negociar, presentar propuestas motivadas y documentar cada etapa mediante actas y minutas. La ausencia de respuesta, la dilación injustificada o la simulación de negociación pueden ser interpretadas por la autoridad administrativa laboral y Tribunales como conducta obstructiva. Por ello, es recomendable designar un equipo interlocutor, integrado por Recursos Humanos, Asesoría Jurídica e inclusive involucrar al área de Finanzas con delegación escrita de facultades para negociar y firmar acuerdos, y registrar formalmente.

En esa misma línea de trabajo, otro punto fundamental es, la negociación del Contrato Colectivo de Trabajo, la empresa debe prepararse técnicamente antes de la primera mesa, conviene disponer de un “paquete de negociación” que por ejemplo incluya: análisis de impacto económico de las demandas, alternativas de compensación (beneficios no salariales, escalonamientos, cláusulas de revisión), propuestas de vigencia y mecanismos de revisión, y propuestas de solución de controversias (conciliación obligatoria y mediación previa ante cualquier controversia). Es aconsejable también incorporar cláusulas de paz social condiciones objetivas, evitando pactos que restrinjan derechos fundamentales o que puedan ser declarados nulos por contravenir la normativa laboral y otras cuestiones que deban considerarse posteriormente, las cuales se irán incorporando oportunamente tras evaluación técnica y revisión legal.

Prevención, formación y gestión documental

Tanto en la gestión organizacional de la relación empleador‑sindicato, como en la negociación del Contrato Colectivo, la capacitación preventiva es un pilar ineludible. Los mandos medios y jefaturas son con frecuencia el primer punto de fricción; su desconocimiento de derechos colectivos o su reacción impulsiva (sanciones disciplinarias sin investigación, despidos por actividad sindical o en el trato poco prolijo al trabajador sindical) generan conflictos y litigios costosos que pudieron ser evitados. Por ello sugerimos siempre talleres o charlas de formación sobre derecho sindical, negociación, manejo de conflictos y protocolos disciplinarios, lo que minimiza la ocurrencia de errores y mejoran la convivencia y armonía laboral.

La gestión documental y la auditoría laboral periódica son otras herramientas de mitigación de riesgo. Conservar comunicaciones, actas de reuniones, propuestas, comprobantes de cumplimiento de acuerdos y registros de notificaciones al Ministerio de Trabajo Empleo y Seguridad Social (MTESS) permite demostrar diligencia y cumplimiento normativo. Las auditorías internas o externas, realizadas al menos anualmente, identifican desviaciones y permiten corregirlas antes de que deriven en sanciones administrativas o litigios judiciales.

Frente a la posibilidad real de abusos, ya sea por parte de actores sindicales que utilicen la organización como instrumento de presión indebida, la respuesta empresarial debe ser técnica y proporcional. En casos de prácticas de presión indebida probadas, la empresa debe actuar con la Asesoría Juridica, documentar exhaustivamente los hechos y recurrir a las vías administrativas y judiciales pertinentes, evitando medidas colectivas o represalias que puedan agravar la situación. La proporcionalidad, la motivación y la observancia de procedimientos son requisitos que la normativa laboral exigen para sostener medidas disciplinarias o desvinculaciones.

La comunicación interna y externa requiere especial cuidado. Internamente, la transparencia sobre condiciones laborales, criterios de evaluación y procesos de promoción reduce la desconfianza y la polarización. La Empresa al facilitar información al Sindicato, deberá ceñirse estrictamente a la normativa sobre privacidad y protección de datos personales, garantizando que no se divulgue información individual sobre condiciones de trabajo, salarios u otros datos íntimos sin el consentimiento del trabajador o sin la debida base legal.

Externamente, en situaciones de conflicto, la empresa debe gestionar la comunicación pública con prudencia, evitando mensajes que puedan interpretarse como ataques a la libertad sindical y, al mismo tiempo, informando a clientes y proveedores sobre las medidas adoptadas para garantizar la continuidad operativa y el cumplimiento legal. Una estrategia comunicacional bien diseñada protege la reputación y contribuye a la resolución pacífica de controversias.

Hoy en Paraguay, la tendencia es ineludible: la convivencia entre empresas y sindicatos se profesionaliza. Las Empresas que adopten una postura de respeto, transparencia, documentación y formación no solo reducirán riesgos legales y operativos, sino que podrán transformar la relación colectiva en una fuente de resiliencia y ventaja competitiva. La clave está en anticipar, institucionalizar y negociar con rigor técnico y buena fe.