Abstract
Following a long tradition, in the Spanish Administrative Justice System, the administrative activity is usually challenged by administrative appeals before the judicial channel is accessible. Recently, the Spanish legislator has launched an initiative encouraging ADR, embodied in the 2012 Arbitration Act, although it specifically excludes administrative issues from its scope; however, ADRs are theoretically admitted according to the General Procedure Act (1992) as it allows the agreements between Administration and individuals replacing the unilateral decisions that usually the procedures ends on. On the other hand, some regional Acts specifically rule ADRs either on general (Catalonia) or specific (Basque country, environmental) administrative controversies. In general terms, there are no meaningful ADR tools adapted to administrative issues in Spain that would compete against the special administrative appeals—economic, public procurement—which are successful ways of dispute resolution due to the authority and independence of the administrative bodies in charge of such specific complaints.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
In this respect, it is interesting to realize the legal transition process regarding Administrative Law being adapted to the new constitutional order, a process that took nearly two decades; see Martín Rebollo (2010).
- 3.
The preconstitutional legislation required direct affectation on rights for one to be allowed to bring an action against the administrative activity. This requirement of direct affectation made the standard to sue narrower than is stated in the current regulation (affectation on rights and legitimate interests); sadly, direct affectation is still a controversial requirement for citizens to bring an annulment action before the European Court of Justice according to article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU.
- 4.
Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2008, article 48.
- 5.
Act 1985, num. 16, article 8.
- 6.
Costal Zone Act 1998, num. 22, article 109.
- 7.
National Parks Act 2007, num. 5, article 22.
- 8.
Access to justice and environmental information Act 2006, num. 27, article 22.
- 9.
According to the 30/1992 Act, article 107, administrative remedy could be brought against intermediary acts if they decide directly or indirectly on the substance of the matter, making it impossible for the proceeding to continue, thus causing loss of defense or irreparable loss of legitimate rights and interests.
- 10.
According to 30/1992 Act, article 109, the following acts conclude the administrative channels: Resolutions in administrative remedies before the hierarchically superior body (Recurso de Alzada) or those adopted in other objection proceedings that legally substitute this precedent one; Resolutions of administrative authorities without hierarchical superior, unless otherwise provided for in an Act of Parliament; Resolutions of other administrative authorities when so established in a legal provision or regulation; agreements, arrangements, settlements, or contracts deemed to end the proceeding.
- 11.
Such exceptional circumstances are the following: (1) their issues involved a factual error arising from the documents incorporated into the file; (2) documents appear of essential value for the resolution of the matter, which, while posterior, evidence the error in the resolution appealed; (3) the resolution was decisively influenced by documents or testimony declared in a final court ruling prior to or following said resolution to have been false; (4) the resolution was handed down as a result of prevarication, bribery, violence, fraudulent conspiracy, or some other punishable conduct declared in a final court ruling. In the first of these causes, the term is 4 years following the date of notification of the resolution challenged; in the remaining cases, the period is 3 months from disclosure of the documents or the time when the court ruling becomes final. Term to issue and to notify a resolution is 3 months.
- 12.
That is, (a) When they infringe constitutionally protected rights and liberties; (b) when handed down by an authority manifestly incompetent because of the subject or territory; (c) when the content is impossible; when constituting criminal infraction or handed down as a result thereof; (e) when they totally and absolutely ignore the legally established procedure or the provisions containing the essential rules for the creation of collective authorities will; (f) specific or presumed decisions contrary to the legal provisions by which powers or rights are acquired, when the essential prerequisites for such acquisition are absent; (g) any other expressly created in a legal provision.
- 13.
Although there is no specific deadline, there is a general limit, as the review cannot be intended “when because of negative prescription of actions, the time elapsed or other circumstances, it conflicts with equity, good faith, individual rights or the legislation” (30/92 Act, article 106).
- 14.
It is regulated by the 1992 Act, article 103.
- 15.
Occasionally, the Minister for Economic Affair and Finance is to rule on fiscal complaints that the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central has judged, by reason of their nature, the amount involved, or their importance.
- 16.
Judgement of the court of 21 March 2000, Cases C-110/98 to 147/98.
- 17.
Directive 2007/66/CE.
- 18.
Except if there are subject to notification, publication, or approval at a higher level or it order otherwise.
- 19.
30/1992 Act, article 138.
- 20.
Real Decreto Legislativo 3/2011, article 45.
- 21.
Or the Council of Minister, the autonomous governments, the local authorities, depending on each case.
- 22.
There is an additional judicial body, the Audiencia National, which has been trusted for specific issues. See Palomar Olmeda (2008–2010).
- 23.
As the resolution of an ordinary remedy, Recurso de Alzada, exhausts the administrative channels.
- 24.
Although it is not always directly applied, particularly concerning tax claims. For confirming this possibility, see Constitutional Court Judgments no. 58 and 61/2009 of 9 of March and no. 155/2012, of 16 of July.
- 25.
See Constitutional Court, Judgment 32/1982, 7 June.
- 26.
See Judgments of the ECHR 7 of June 2007, Case Salt Hiper, and 15 of December 2009. Case Llavador Carretero, among others.
- 27.
- 28.
García de Valdeavellano (1977), p. 671.
- 29.
This procedure is named “recurso de amparo.”
- 30.
Spanish Constitution, article 54: “An organic act shall regulate the institution of the Defensor del Pueblo as the High Commissioner of the Parliament appointed for the protection of the rights contained in this title, for which purpose he may supervise the activity of the Administration, informing the Parliament of it.”
- 31.
Organic Act 3/1981, April 6th, regarding the Ombudsman. Organic acts require a reinforced majority to be passed.
- 32.
Astarloa Villena (1994), p. 45.
- 33.
Peñarrubia Iza (2001), op. cit., p. 105.
- 34.
Fairén Guillén (1982), p. 86.
- 35.
Corchete Martín (2001), p. 129.
- 36.
Carballo Martínez (2008), p. 262.
- 37.
- 38.
See some classic problems of ADR relating administrative issues on Cordón Moreno (2010).
References
Astarloa Villena F (1994) El Defensor del Pueblo en España. Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca
Carballo Martínez G (2008) La mediación administrativa y el Defensor del Pueblo. Editorial Aranzadi, Navarra
Corchete Martín MJ (2001) El Defensor del Pueblo y la protección de los derechos. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca
Cordón Moreno F (2010) Arbitraje y jurisdicción: algunas cuestiones polémicas. Thomson-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor
Fairén Guillén V (1982) El Defensor del Pueblo -Ombudsman. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid
Galera Rodrigo S (ed) (2010) Judicial review. A comparative analysis inside the European legal system. Council of Europe edition
García de Valdeavellano L (1977) Curso de Historia de las instituciones españolas, 5ª edición. Biblioteca de la Revista de Occidente, Madrid
Gil-Robles y Gil-Delgado A (1979) El Defensor del Pueblo. Editorial Civitas, Madrid
Gil-Robles y Gil-Delgado A (1981) El control parlamentario de la Administración (el Ombudsman). INAP, Madrid
Martín Rebollo L (2012) Código de Leyes Administrativas, 18ª edn. Thomson-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor
Martín Rebollo L (2010) Treinta Años de Derecho Adminsitrativo. Available on http://sgalera.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/treinta-anyos-dcho-admtvo.pdf
Palomar Olmeda A (Dir.) (2008–2010) Tratado de la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. Thomson-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor
Peñarrubia Iza JM (2001) Ombudsman Militar y Defensor del Pueblo. Estudio de Derecho comparado y español. Editorial Dilex, Madrid
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galera, S., Acosta, P., Soleto, H. (2014). ADR Tools in Spanish Administrative Law. In: Dragos, D., Neamtu, B. (eds) Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34946-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34946-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34945-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34946-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)