Through a reform of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction Law
MADRID, 9 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The PSOE has proposed in Congress a modification of the law that regulates the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction to open the door so that the provisions of the Council of Transparency and Good Governance, which now have to be appealed before the central courts of Contentious-Administrative, may be subject to appeal directly before the corresponding chamber of the National High Court.
This is how the PSOE proposes it in one of the amendments that it has presented to the draft Law regulating the protection of people who report on regulatory infractions and the fight against corruption, which transposes the European Directive on the protection of informants on infringements of Union Law (APL).
In their amendment, to which Europa Press has had access, the Socialists are committed to modifying the fourth additional provision of the law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction of 1998, which determines the bodies whose provisions may be appealed to the National High Court .
According to current regulations, these are the acts and provisions issued by the Spanish Data Protection Agency, the National Markets and Competition Commission, the Economic and Social Council, the Cervantes Institute, the Nuclear Safety Council, the Council of Universities and the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission.
Now the Socialists suggest that the provisions of the Council for Transparency and Good Governance (CTBG) and the Independent Authority for the Protection of Informants, a body that will be created with the transposition of the European directive for the protection of informants that is being processed in Congress.
The PSOE justifies its amendment by alleging that currently the resolutions of the president of the Council for Transparency and Good Governance, regarding the claims presented by citizens who exercise their right to obtain public information, are the only ones issued by the highest body of an administrative authority. that are appealed before the Central Courts of Contentious-Administrative Matters.
According to the majority party, this anomaly has its origin in an “omission inconsistency” incurred in the elaboration and approval of the Transparency Law and “gives rise to the fact that, in practice, two instances are almost always covered and, frequently, a subsequent one before the Supreme Court, which is admitting many appeals in this area to establish doctrine”.
All this, points out the PSOE, “entails a high consumption of public resources” if one takes into account, in addition, that there are 12 bodies in the first instance and there is often a disparity of criteria between them, “with the legal insecurity that this generates until a firm pronouncement is made by the superior instance”.
