Portal de Lorca
www.portaldelorca.com
The Consistory sent in July a consultation to the Legal Council of the Region of Murcia in whose terms the opinion of the State Advocacy agrees.
It is a document that the City Council makes available to all interested in the council of the Earthquake, with the caution that this opinion is not binding.
The Spokeswoman of the Government Team in the City Council of Lorca, Fátima Mínguez, has congratulated herself because the pronouncement of the State Advocacy on the date of prescription of the justification of the grants granted to affected by the earthquakes coincides fully with the criterion that makes More than 4 months we presented from the City Council on this issue before the Legal Council of the Region of Murcia.
Mínguez Silvente has stated that this pronouncement of the State Advocacy is not binding, but all the documents that can contribute to continue advancing in this matter add up.
In fact this City Council, through the Department of the Earthquake, makes available to interested Lorca a copy of it.
The main issue of this issue is to establish from what initial date is available to request the justification of the aid, with the interpretation of both the City Council and the State Attorney's Office: the period begins to run from the conclusion of the work of repair for which the aid is granted.
The Municipal Spokesperson has indicated that the Mayor of Lorca, Fulgencio Gil, requested in July to the Legal Council of the Region of Murcia the issuance of an optional opinion to clarify what dates should be taken as a reference to determine the prescription of aid files related to the repair of houses damaged by earthquakes.
This measure is due to the fact that the Mayor of the Municipal Consistory understands that those affected by the earthquakes beneficiaries of public aid are finding orders to initiate the procedure of reimbursement of the subsidy even when the exercise of this action would be prescribed .
From the Consistory is also considered that, in several cases, there is absence of justification for the justification of the aid received, which would invalidate the proceedings initiated by defencelessness of citizens in violation of the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations that should preside over relations between Public Administrations.
The criterion of the City Council in this regard defends that the maximum period of execution of the repair works is 12 months from the payment of the aid, and 6 after the completion of the works.
In spite of this, requests have been detected for the reimbursement of subsidies calculated on a maximum reparation period of 12 months and 24 for reconstruction, so that the cases of the works already carried out are not taken into account and the established general terms of works apply. not performed, that is, it establishes a deadline from which to count (Dies a quo) to give the procedure as prescribed the maximum period of 12 months for the execution of works and 6 months for its justification.
We understand that these criteria regarding the deadlines are not adjusted to reality, since the decree that regulates these aids indicated that the citizen had a maximum period of 12 months, and may have carried out the works even before said payment.
The aforementioned decree indicates in relation to the justification that the citizen had 6 months from the end of the works to justify them and, in the case of works already executed, of 3 to count from the notification of the resolution if it had not been done previously. to your concession.
The City Council considers, with respect to the prescription of the reimbursement of the aid, that its calculation must be made taking into account the date on which the justification period expires and begin to compute the 4 years for its expiration, therefore they would be prescribed subsidy reimbursement actions carried out following this criterion.
From this City Council it is reiterated that when in the initial notifications sent to the beneficiaries of these aids no percentages were indicated for the execution of the repairs, it is not possible at the time of the justification to introduce new elements, since the justification must be consistent with the notification.
If no percentages were indicated in the notification of approval of aid, now these requirements can not be demanded, since we would be before the nullity of the actions for violation of the principle of legitimate trust and good faith.
In a possible collision between the principle of administrative legality and legal certainty, which would include the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations, prevalence would even be granted to the principle of legal security
We must point out that the City Council has a decree from the Mayor's Office that includes a Legal Report issued by the Director of the Local Government Office, supported by a broad legal doctrine (General Budgetary Law, General Grant Law, different , Decrees Law and judgments of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and refers in its text to the collaboration agreement between the Consistory and the Regional Government signed for the purpose in 2012. In fact as applicable regulations states:
Law 2/1998, of May 19, of the Legal Council of the Region of Murcia.
Decree 15/1988, of 2 April, by which the Regulation of Organization and Operation of the Legal Council of the Region of Murcia is approved.
Law 7/1985, of April 2, Regulating the Bases of Local Regime.
Law 38/2003, of November 17, General of Subsidies.
Law 40/2015, of October 1, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector.
Royal Decree 6/2011, of May 13 through which urgent measures are adopted to repair the damage caused by seismic movements that occurred on May 11, 2011 in Lorca, Murcia.
Source: Ayuntamiento de Lorca
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies