Post by account_disabled on Feb 19, 2024 23:39:17 GMT -5
The report insists that “it is advisable to differentiate between the administrative activity of assistance - information and guidance - to the administrator and the initiation of an administrative procedure at the request of a party . The latter responds to a form, requirements and deadlines established by the procedural laws and other applicable regulations, with the rights provided for in art. 53 of the LPC, while the assistance activity is a contributing and peripheral element of the procedure itself , the purpose of which is to help and assist the administrator, through the corresponding advisory work in the initiation or development thereof.
Administration Citizen Service Office. (Photo: La Moncloa)
In this sense, the prior appointment, whose purpose is the aforementioned, should not be considered as another “procedure” of the administrative procedure, whose novation Fax Lists would be subject to the principle of reservation of law, ex art 1.2 LPC. It cannot even be considered as a form of initiation of the procedure, although it may give rise to a subsequent initiation, which will be carried out through the corresponding channel, but whose existence and regulation is not subject to the rules of the administrative procedure within the scope of the AEAT. .
Regarding this, it should be noted that, although it is true that the information and guidance tasks are different from the beginning of the administrative procedure, it is also true that when said advisory work is necessary to be able to start a procedure or to obtain a document that must be provided in one , since this requirement of the prior appointment affects the same procedure and/or the deadlines for compliance with the procedures thereof, it does acquire the category of one more procedure of said procedure not provided for in the LPAC.
This has been happening for many years in nationality and immigration , where personal appearance is required to carry out various procedures and is organized through the mandatory appointment system. The delay in granting appointments, in addition to causing a system of buying and selling appointments that has been denounced among others by the Valencian Ombudsman , has led the Courts to consider that the date of request for the appointment is identified with the of the start of the procedure ( STSJ of Madrid of 06/21/2019 , appeal 1023/2018 or STSJ Madrid no. 399/2012, of May 4 , appeal 1302/2011).
Furthermore, it must be added that mandatory prior appointments have been required in registration assistance offices , which clearly affects the possibilities granted by law and which we will see in the next section. Therefore, the introduction of any additional procedure in those cases would violate art. 1.2 LPAC that requires that said addiction be carried out by law, in a motivated manner and only when this is effective, proportionate and necessary to achieve the purposes of the procedure.
Administration Citizen Service Office. (Photo: La Moncloa)
In this sense, the prior appointment, whose purpose is the aforementioned, should not be considered as another “procedure” of the administrative procedure, whose novation Fax Lists would be subject to the principle of reservation of law, ex art 1.2 LPC. It cannot even be considered as a form of initiation of the procedure, although it may give rise to a subsequent initiation, which will be carried out through the corresponding channel, but whose existence and regulation is not subject to the rules of the administrative procedure within the scope of the AEAT. .
Regarding this, it should be noted that, although it is true that the information and guidance tasks are different from the beginning of the administrative procedure, it is also true that when said advisory work is necessary to be able to start a procedure or to obtain a document that must be provided in one , since this requirement of the prior appointment affects the same procedure and/or the deadlines for compliance with the procedures thereof, it does acquire the category of one more procedure of said procedure not provided for in the LPAC.
This has been happening for many years in nationality and immigration , where personal appearance is required to carry out various procedures and is organized through the mandatory appointment system. The delay in granting appointments, in addition to causing a system of buying and selling appointments that has been denounced among others by the Valencian Ombudsman , has led the Courts to consider that the date of request for the appointment is identified with the of the start of the procedure ( STSJ of Madrid of 06/21/2019 , appeal 1023/2018 or STSJ Madrid no. 399/2012, of May 4 , appeal 1302/2011).
Furthermore, it must be added that mandatory prior appointments have been required in registration assistance offices , which clearly affects the possibilities granted by law and which we will see in the next section. Therefore, the introduction of any additional procedure in those cases would violate art. 1.2 LPAC that requires that said addiction be carried out by law, in a motivated manner and only when this is effective, proportionate and necessary to achieve the purposes of the procedure.