URBAN PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWYERS IN GRANADA

URBAN PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWYERS IN GRANADA

LAWYERS RIGHTS CLAIMS BEFORE THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GRANADA

LAWYERS CLAIMS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION IN GRANADA

PATRIMONIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWYERS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS IN GRANADA

URBAN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LAWYERS IN GRANADA

LAWYERS URBAN PLANNING LAW IN GRANADA

Refusal of request for processing of a Detailed Study and thework licenseinterested forbuild up.

Article 86.4 of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, provides that the sentences that, being subject to appeal by application of the preceding sections, have been issued by the Contentious-Administrative Chambers of the Superior Courts of Justice, they will only be appealable in cassation if the appeal seeks to be based on an infringement of rules of State or European Community Law that is relevant and determinant of the appealed ruling, provided that they have been duly invoked in the process or considered by the Chamber sentencing, prescribing article 89.2 of the aforementioned Law, regarding the preparation brief, that in the case provided for in article 86.4 it will have to be justified that the infringement of a state or European community standard has been relevant and determinant of the ruling of the sentence .

It is necessary, therefore, for the judgments handed down by the Superior Courts of Justice to be appealable -all of them, apart from the Administration that authored the contested action- that, in addition to being subject to appeal due to the matter or the amount of the matter , the following requirements are met: A) That the appeal seeks to be based on an infringement of rules of State or European Community Law that is relevant and determinant of the decision appealed; B) That those rules, which the appellant claims to have been infringed, have been invoked in a timely manner by the appellant or considered by the sentencing Chamber; C) That the appellant justify in the brief preparing the appeal that the infringement of the same has been relevant and determinant of the ruling of the sentence.

Repeated doctrine of this Chamber (Writs of May 12 and 29 and June 12 and 26, 2000), since article 86.4 conditions the appealability of the sentences handed down by the Superior Courts of Justice -which are subject to appeal- to the fact that the appeal, that is, the filing of the same, intends to be based on an infringement of rules of state law (or European community) that is relevant and determinant of the appealed decision, this condition being, insofar as it affects the impeachability of the sentence, the which determines that in article 89.2 the appellant is required to justify in the initial process of the challenge procedure -in the brief preparing the appeal- that the infraction of the working legal norms, which in due course may be asserted as the basis of the appeal , has been relevant and determinative of the sentence, in other words, the judgment of relevance has its own headquarters in the brief preparing the appeal, fulfilling the function of delimiting the normative infringements that will serve to articulate the grounds for appeal, to which must be added that the non-observance of article 89.2 affects the very substance of the preparation document -it is not a formal defect-, reason why that cannot be corrected in subsequent actions without distorting its meaning.