The problem with this case is that it has a casuistic nature

taslima333

The challenge of an action that is not susceptible to challenge as a cause for inadmissibility of the contentious-administrative appeal In general terms, the purpose of the contentious-administrative appeal is to challenge the administrative action. More specifically, this can be filed against: (i) provisions of a general nature and against (ii) express or alleged acts of the Public Administration that put an end to the administrative procedure, whether definitive or pending. In the event that the action is pending, it must meet the following requirements: (i) it must decide, directly or indirectly, on the merits of the matter; (ii) it must make it impossible to continue the procedure; and (iii) it must cause defenselessness or irreparable damage to rights or legitimate interests. Likewise, the law indicates that actions against the inactivity of the Public Administration, and acts of application of general provisions may be subject to challenge when these are contrary to Law. In the event that the contentious-administrative appeal filed by the appellant, despite the redundancy, does not have as its object any of the acts, provisions or administrative actions mentioned above, it may be inadmissible because it cannot be appealed through contentious-administrative proceedings.

Fourth reason: the filing period has expired The deadlines in the contentious-administrative order are non-extendable. That is to say, once these have elapsed, the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice will consider the right to challenge said act to have expired. As jurisprudence has pointed out, the deadline for filing the contentious-administrative Cell Phone Number List appeal has a preclusive and peremptory nature because it is a matter of public order not available to the parties, so non-compliance implies inadmissibility for the sake of the principle of security. legal. SAW. Can an inadmissible contentious-administrative appeal be resubmitted? One of the questions that arises in practice is whether, given the inadmissibility of the contentious-administrative appeal , it is possible to restart the process from scratch with a new challenge, or if, on the contrary, the figure of res judicata prevents it from being reconsidered. If we turn to jurisprudence to resolve the previous question, the Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of July , means in this regard that, in contentious-administrative processes, where the access budget is the performance prior administrative, and the period for challenging the act is two months, in accordance with the provisions of article of the LJCA, although the ruling of inadmissibility is not pronounced on the substance, it will not be possible to file an appeal against it.



Expiration of the term. However, when the contentious-administrative appeal is filed against an alleged rejection due to negative administrative silence, the action is not conditioned to expiration, since the six-month period established in article of the LJCA has been materially repealed. by the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, which indicates that no maximum period for filing contentious-administrative appeals governs . That is why, in this case, it would be possible to file the appeal again. And the above because the presumed dismissal does not violate the principle of “res judicata” since the court did not rule on the merits of the dispute. This, together with the lack of a deadline for its challenge, may lead to its reconsideration. VII. The inadmissibility of the contentious-administrative appeal through article of the LJCA Likewise, although it is not about the inadmissibility of the contentious-administrative appeal as such, we would like to make a brief mention of the provisions of article of the LJCA. To initiate a contentious-administrative appeal , one of the first documents that must be presented is the filing document, which must be accompanied by the documents listed in article of the LJCA: (i) the one that accredits the representation of the appellant; (ii) the one that certifies the legitimation of the act; (iii) the copy or transfer of the provision that is appealed; and (iv) the document that certifies compliance with the requirements to file the appeal by legal entities in accordance with their internal rules or statutes.