Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 1:05:15 GMT -5
Background of the case
In the present case, the AEAT agreed, on February 27, 2015, to execute the resolution issued by the TEAR of Madrid on October 28, 2014, which expressly states the date entered into the ORT: December 2, 2014. This means that the AEAT , as an institutional Administration with its own legal personality in which the specific body to which the law grants the competence to appeal - the director of the Inspection Department - is integrated, was already aware of the resolution on December 2, 2014 and, therefore, was able from that very moment to challenge the adverse resolution . Therefore, the filing of the appeal on March 24, 2015, when the TEAR resolution was final, means that said appeal was filed out of time [1].
Reasoning of the Court
“Entry into the ORT [2] had previously taken place on December 2, 2014, which is unquestionable and has not been contradicted. The acronym ORT means Email Data Office of Relations with the Courts and, therefore, it cannot be innocuous or irrelevant , without failing to comply with the most basic requirements of good faith, to assume that the entry of the communication in that office - which is also inserted within the AEAT, with a specific function and purpose of relations with the Courts - would take place on that date, with effects for the entire Agency, which is the legal entity, prior even to that of the aforementioned agreement, by which it is ordered the execution. Denying knowledge of what the aforementioned ORT already knows constitutes a blatant and incomprehensible infringement of the principle of good administration and, in connection with it, of good faith, including that of administrative efficiency (art. 103 CE).
Accepting otherwise would be like claiming a kind of right or excuse for an administrative body to hide information from others in the same organization. , hiding what is known in it, as well as the right of any body, even management, of the same Administration - which serves, says the Constitution, that is, it must serve the general interests, according to Article 103 CE - of pretexting the ignorance of a resolution, only because it has not specifically reached a specific body within that organization, endowed , that is to say once again, of single legal personality .
In the present case, the AEAT agreed, on February 27, 2015, to execute the resolution issued by the TEAR of Madrid on October 28, 2014, which expressly states the date entered into the ORT: December 2, 2014. This means that the AEAT , as an institutional Administration with its own legal personality in which the specific body to which the law grants the competence to appeal - the director of the Inspection Department - is integrated, was already aware of the resolution on December 2, 2014 and, therefore, was able from that very moment to challenge the adverse resolution . Therefore, the filing of the appeal on March 24, 2015, when the TEAR resolution was final, means that said appeal was filed out of time [1].
Reasoning of the Court
“Entry into the ORT [2] had previously taken place on December 2, 2014, which is unquestionable and has not been contradicted. The acronym ORT means Email Data Office of Relations with the Courts and, therefore, it cannot be innocuous or irrelevant , without failing to comply with the most basic requirements of good faith, to assume that the entry of the communication in that office - which is also inserted within the AEAT, with a specific function and purpose of relations with the Courts - would take place on that date, with effects for the entire Agency, which is the legal entity, prior even to that of the aforementioned agreement, by which it is ordered the execution. Denying knowledge of what the aforementioned ORT already knows constitutes a blatant and incomprehensible infringement of the principle of good administration and, in connection with it, of good faith, including that of administrative efficiency (art. 103 CE).
Accepting otherwise would be like claiming a kind of right or excuse for an administrative body to hide information from others in the same organization. , hiding what is known in it, as well as the right of any body, even management, of the same Administration - which serves, says the Constitution, that is, it must serve the general interests, according to Article 103 CE - of pretexting the ignorance of a resolution, only because it has not specifically reached a specific body within that organization, endowed , that is to say once again, of single legal personality .