{"id":3927,"date":"2021-07-21T16:32:45","date_gmt":"2021-07-21T15:32:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/?p=3927"},"modified":"2021-07-21T16:32:52","modified_gmt":"2021-07-21T15:32:52","slug":"calculation-of-the-deadline-for-filing-the-contentious-appeal-when-the-administrative-resolution-is-notified-in-august","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/calculation-of-the-deadline-for-filing-the-contentious-appeal-when-the-administrative-resolution-is-notified-in-august\/","title":{"rendered":"Calculation of the deadline for filing the contentious appeal when the administrative resolution is notified in August"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Judgment July 2, 2020<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court responds to the question of appeal raised, in relation to the beginning of the term to file contentious-administrative appeal when it is an administrative resolution notified in the month of August, and insists that, with the new wording of the art. 128.2 LJCA, the previous existing doctrine in relation to the previous LJCA of 1956 is exceeded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Sentence 910\/2020, 2 Jul. Appeal 3780\/2019 (LAW 72800\/2020)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The month of August must be discounted in the period for filing<\/strong> the contentious-administrative appeal, and when the notification of the administrative action occurs in August, the bimonthly term for the filing of said appeal must begin to run on September 1<\/strong> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the new wording of art. 128.2 LJCA (LAW 2689\/1998) <\/a>exceeds the previous doctrine<\/strong> according to which the substantive and non-procedural nature of the term to file the appeal must be observed<\/a> , by referring to the calculation of the terms of art. 5 of the Civil Code (LAW 1\/1889)<\/a> . This doctrine was based on considering that the filing period had a substantive, and not procedural, nature, as it referred to actions prior to the contentious-administrative process with the consequence that the generic declaration of August as non-working for all the judicial actions that it carried out the art. 183 LOPJ (LAW 1694\/1985)<\/a> was not enough to consider repealed a specific precept, theart. 121.1 of the old LJCA (LAW 2689\/1998)<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current art. 128.2 LJCA (LAW 2689\/1998)<\/a> , does not limit itself to declaring the month of August non-working for the filing of the contentious-administrative appeal, but it imposes that during the month of August the deadline for filing the appeal does not run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, a harmonized interpretation of the date-to-date calculation established by <\/strong>art. 5 of the Civil Code (LAW 1\/1889)<\/strong><\/a> , with the requirement contained in <\/strong>art. 128.2 LJCA (LAW 2689\/1998)<\/strong><\/a>, special and subsequent law, that during the month of August the deadline for the filing of the contentious-administrative appeal does not run, leads to the conclusion that, when the notification of the appealed act occurs during the month of August, the initial day of the computation must be moved to September 1 and, from there, compute the two months from date to date. This is the only way to respect the express and unequivocal mandate of the legislator, contained in art. 128.2 LJCA (LAW 2689\/1998)<\/a>, and that the term does not run during the month of August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, the High Court emphasizes that, except for the procedure for the protection of fundamental rights, during the month of August there is no deadline for filing the contentious-administrative appeal<\/strong> .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Judgment July 2, 2020 The High Court responds to the question of appeal raised, in relation to the beginning of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3927"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.btsasociados.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}