Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 5:41:22 GMT 1
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Section 3 of the Supreme Court has issued sentence 734/2023, of June 5, in which it declares that “it is not possible to establish a jurisprudence of general scope on the specific criterion to quantify compensation derived from the annulment of an administrative act restricting rights .”
Background of the case
By resolution of the General Directorate of Community Agrarian Policy, of September 22, 2020, the offer presented by the appellant company to participate in the tender for the granting of aid for the private storage of olive oil was inadmissible for processing, subsequently confirmed in an appeal. by resolution of February 15, 2021.
After the aforementioned resolution was appealed through contentious-administrative proceedings, the appeal was upheld, by means of a ruling by the TSJ of Fax Lists Extremadura, of October 8, 2021, which annulled the administrative resolution and ordered the Administration of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura to pay the recurring industrial benefit of 6% of the total contract amount.
The company appeals the lower court ruling, understanding that “even when the amount of the aid is set through a bidding procedure and ends with the signing of a contract, there is no analogical application of provisions established expressly and exclusively. for the field of public procurement , specifically the works contract (article 131.1.b) of the RGCAP), given that we are not dealing with the tender for the provision of a service to a Public Administration, but with aid to the operator by keeping the product stored for a certain period of time in order to correct imbalances in the market, that is, a subsidy that is granted with the obligation to comply with a series of commitments by the beneficiary.
What the appellant company ultimately requested was compensation that would entail full reparation for the damages suffered due to the impossibility of receiving the subsidy for which it had opted [1] .
Background of the case
By resolution of the General Directorate of Community Agrarian Policy, of September 22, 2020, the offer presented by the appellant company to participate in the tender for the granting of aid for the private storage of olive oil was inadmissible for processing, subsequently confirmed in an appeal. by resolution of February 15, 2021.
After the aforementioned resolution was appealed through contentious-administrative proceedings, the appeal was upheld, by means of a ruling by the TSJ of Fax Lists Extremadura, of October 8, 2021, which annulled the administrative resolution and ordered the Administration of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura to pay the recurring industrial benefit of 6% of the total contract amount.
The company appeals the lower court ruling, understanding that “even when the amount of the aid is set through a bidding procedure and ends with the signing of a contract, there is no analogical application of provisions established expressly and exclusively. for the field of public procurement , specifically the works contract (article 131.1.b) of the RGCAP), given that we are not dealing with the tender for the provision of a service to a Public Administration, but with aid to the operator by keeping the product stored for a certain period of time in order to correct imbalances in the market, that is, a subsidy that is granted with the obligation to comply with a series of commitments by the beneficiary.
What the appellant company ultimately requested was compensation that would entail full reparation for the damages suffered due to the impossibility of receiving the subsidy for which it had opted [1] .