An administrative act may be appeale , in accordance with article Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter LPACAP), when it is a resolution or even when it is of an act issu within a procedure and it turns out to be qualified, that is, it decides directly or indirectly on the merits of the matter. Determines the impossibility of continuing with the procedure or produces defenselessness or irreparable damage to legitimate rights and interests. Regarding this last type of (qualified) acts, the Ruling of April of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, appeal no.

The regulation of challenges through contentious-administrative

Law on the Legal Regime of Public Administrations and Common Administrative Procedure, LRJAPPAC. In considering the procedural acts consider as qualifie to be contestable, that is, those that directly or indirectly decide the substance of the matter, determine the impossibility of continue Singapore WhatsApp Number Data the procedure. Produce defenselessness or irreparable damage to legitimate rights and interests. And the previous ones. Regardless of whether or not they put an end to the administrative route. On many occasions. Whether or not we are face with a qualifie procedural act and, therefore, susceptible to autonomous challenge. Turns out to be a question that must be interprete by our Courts of Justice. As it is not expressly state in the applicable legislation.

On administrative acts that may not be appealed

Regarding the verification and investigation procedure initiated. Which we are told that no action was taken after the aforemention communication until the resolution of the conflict Lithuania WhatsApp Number List that arose. It is absolutely unknown if it was followed and. If applicable, its result, it must be It must be agree that we are dealing with an unqualified procedural act that cannot be appeale. In this sense, this Court has ruled on numerous occasions. Including the ruling of March , (RJ , ) , which summarizes the existing doctrine, and in which we said. This is what happens in the present case. In which the contested act is a mere procedural act initiating a procedure for the tax.