Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:46:55 GMT
Justice agrees with the citizen whose appeal was inadmissible for being excessively diligent
The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia has upheld the appeal filed against the ruling of the Administrative Litigation Court number 2 of Vigo, which upheld the inadmissibility of an appeal against a decision of the Administration for having been presented with excessive haste. , the same day the citizen received the notification.
The General Directorate of Family denied the request to DJ USA renew the title of large family of this person, as the man did not document, within the period given for this purpose, the reason why the daughters not common with his wife did not live together in the family home. On the same day that they notified said denial , the affected person filed an appeal, which was inadmissible because it was presented before the period for appealing began . The court rejected the contentious-administrative appeal filed by the man against the Administration's decision.
The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia begins by stating that there has been an “excessively rigorous” interpretation of the norm. “Only exaggerated formal rigor can support a resolution like the one challenged here and, furthermore, with such a brief justifying motivation ,” he maintains. Article 30 of Law 39/2015, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, establishes that the deadlines will be computed from the day following the day on which the notification or publication in question takes place.
The appealed ruling, echoed by lawyer Diego Gómez , indicates that “there is no consolidated jurisprudential doctrine regarding this specific case. Yes, there is in relation to untimeliness due to late presentation of the appeal, but not when it takes place early or prematurely . According to the court, it would not be possible to make a double reading of the aforementioned article, rejecting the formulation of the appeal once the granted period has expired, but admitting it when the period has not been opened. This interpretation is logical, the TSJ admits, but in this way the “same treatment is being granted to the diligent person as to the negligent or careless person .” Furthermore, the error would be correctable, “even automatically due to the passage of time, without the principles of rationality and procedural economy making it necessary for the citizen to correct anything because the simple passing of the hours of that day will cause the next day to arrive. the notification and the Administration now has the resource in its hands.” But the thing is that, even in the case of applying the rule with excessive rigor, " the appeal could never be inadmissible without first giving the interested party a period of time to correct it."
The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia has upheld the appeal filed against the ruling of the Administrative Litigation Court number 2 of Vigo, which upheld the inadmissibility of an appeal against a decision of the Administration for having been presented with excessive haste. , the same day the citizen received the notification.
The General Directorate of Family denied the request to DJ USA renew the title of large family of this person, as the man did not document, within the period given for this purpose, the reason why the daughters not common with his wife did not live together in the family home. On the same day that they notified said denial , the affected person filed an appeal, which was inadmissible because it was presented before the period for appealing began . The court rejected the contentious-administrative appeal filed by the man against the Administration's decision.
The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia begins by stating that there has been an “excessively rigorous” interpretation of the norm. “Only exaggerated formal rigor can support a resolution like the one challenged here and, furthermore, with such a brief justifying motivation ,” he maintains. Article 30 of Law 39/2015, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, establishes that the deadlines will be computed from the day following the day on which the notification or publication in question takes place.
The appealed ruling, echoed by lawyer Diego Gómez , indicates that “there is no consolidated jurisprudential doctrine regarding this specific case. Yes, there is in relation to untimeliness due to late presentation of the appeal, but not when it takes place early or prematurely . According to the court, it would not be possible to make a double reading of the aforementioned article, rejecting the formulation of the appeal once the granted period has expired, but admitting it when the period has not been opened. This interpretation is logical, the TSJ admits, but in this way the “same treatment is being granted to the diligent person as to the negligent or careless person .” Furthermore, the error would be correctable, “even automatically due to the passage of time, without the principles of rationality and procedural economy making it necessary for the citizen to correct anything because the simple passing of the hours of that day will cause the next day to arrive. the notification and the Administration now has the resource in its hands.” But the thing is that, even in the case of applying the rule with excessive rigor, " the appeal could never be inadmissible without first giving the interested party a period of time to correct it."