Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 4:39:22 GMT
The prior appointment cannot limit the places of presentation of documents of art. 16.4 of Law 39/2015.
The report also states that “in accordance with the above, and regardless of the greater or lesser availability of “prior appointments” or their speed, there is always the possibility that the administrator, within the scope of the AEAT, and when What you really intend is to carry out a purely procedural act, initiate the procedure through the electronic headquarters channel or by submitting the documentation in the corresponding or common registry (art. 16.4 of the LPC).”
However, this is not correct. When we encounter a procedural act or the prior appointment , the different means and places of presentation of documents offered by art directly Fax Lists affect the administrative procedure . 16.4 of Law 39/2015 cannot be limited by the Administration , not even alleging that it makes use of its power of self-organization, since it is a right conferred directly by the legislator.
This is what the Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias of 02/17/2023 (Rec. No. 95/2022) reminds us : “… argue the appellants who requested and obtained, on April 16, 2021, a prior appointment for the presentation of the claim in question, and they prove this with the document attached to the statement of claim, which reflects that date of 4/16/2021 as communication of the prior appointment for 4/21/2021, mentioning, as an action to be carried out “presentation of heritage transmissions”. Indeed, as the Administration refers, art. 16.4 of the LPACAP establishes that '4. The documents that the interested parties address to the Public Administration bodies may be presented : a) In the electronic registry of the Administration or Organization to which they are addressed, as well as in the remaining electronic records of any of the subjects referred to in the article 2.1. b) In the Post Offices , in the manner established by regulation. c) In the diplomatic representations or consular offices of Spain abroad. d) In the registration assistance offices . e) In any other manner established by the current provisions.
That is, it establishes several ways through which to access the presentation of writings and requests addressed to a specific Administration.
However, a criterion of prevalence or priority is not established , so that the person chosen by the administrator to access one of the instruments of access to the Administration's registry, the self-organization rule established by it, cannot harm the person who has acted with the sufficient diligence to present, in this case, your claim within the deadline...What cannot be accepted is that by using a main access route to a public registry, such as the general registry, the interested parties see their rights curtailed, or are forces the use of other alternative means , due to the unilateral decision of the Administration to establish a system that limits in-person access to the offices intended for the reception of documentation.”
The report also states that “in accordance with the above, and regardless of the greater or lesser availability of “prior appointments” or their speed, there is always the possibility that the administrator, within the scope of the AEAT, and when What you really intend is to carry out a purely procedural act, initiate the procedure through the electronic headquarters channel or by submitting the documentation in the corresponding or common registry (art. 16.4 of the LPC).”
However, this is not correct. When we encounter a procedural act or the prior appointment , the different means and places of presentation of documents offered by art directly Fax Lists affect the administrative procedure . 16.4 of Law 39/2015 cannot be limited by the Administration , not even alleging that it makes use of its power of self-organization, since it is a right conferred directly by the legislator.
This is what the Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias of 02/17/2023 (Rec. No. 95/2022) reminds us : “… argue the appellants who requested and obtained, on April 16, 2021, a prior appointment for the presentation of the claim in question, and they prove this with the document attached to the statement of claim, which reflects that date of 4/16/2021 as communication of the prior appointment for 4/21/2021, mentioning, as an action to be carried out “presentation of heritage transmissions”. Indeed, as the Administration refers, art. 16.4 of the LPACAP establishes that '4. The documents that the interested parties address to the Public Administration bodies may be presented : a) In the electronic registry of the Administration or Organization to which they are addressed, as well as in the remaining electronic records of any of the subjects referred to in the article 2.1. b) In the Post Offices , in the manner established by regulation. c) In the diplomatic representations or consular offices of Spain abroad. d) In the registration assistance offices . e) In any other manner established by the current provisions.
That is, it establishes several ways through which to access the presentation of writings and requests addressed to a specific Administration.
However, a criterion of prevalence or priority is not established , so that the person chosen by the administrator to access one of the instruments of access to the Administration's registry, the self-organization rule established by it, cannot harm the person who has acted with the sufficient diligence to present, in this case, your claim within the deadline...What cannot be accepted is that by using a main access route to a public registry, such as the general registry, the interested parties see their rights curtailed, or are forces the use of other alternative means , due to the unilateral decision of the Administration to establish a system that limits in-person access to the offices intended for the reception of documentation.”