Unpaid Business Recovery Iva E

The times seem to be conducive to our courts of administrative disputes go of the mane and surprise us with decisions that lead to our mayors from joy to anxiety.

So, while deciding to go to the aid of allowing municipalities to charge fees even when it refuses to grant a license, scare the mayors with the imposition of a penalty under their personal assets in the event of default on municipal debt .

Let's look briefly at each of these court decisions.

1 .- The lime: urban collection fee in the denial of licenses

The novelty is that so far the municipalities did not charge (usually) any fee in those cases in which the mayors, in the context of its own powers, resolved to refuse to grant a license. Thus, the collection of the levy had been linked necessarily to the benefit or result obtained by the applicant or taxpayer.

Put another way, without profit, without a license, could not require any fees, and that even if the administration displayed a checking service that obviously had a cost.

Well, the Supreme Court has chosen to overcome what has been called "prior conceptions" saying now in its ruling of 5 February 2010 (4267/2007 Appeal, RJ 2010/1383) that "it is true that the effective conducting the activity or service is a fundamental requirement to be conducted to understand the fact of any levy, it is no less administrative activity that does not have to end with an act of accessing the applicant's claims, "recalling that constituted the taxable event is not so much obtaining a license as determined by the performance by the City Council of the verification activity requires matching the request with the planning regulations.

In the above, one of lime., Left open the way for mayors to increase municipal revenues in these difficult times through appropriate amendments to their ordinances.

2 .- The sand: personal responsibilities of Mayors for municipal debt defaults

More surprising has been the recent Court of Justice of Andalusia, July 13, 2010 (which resolves an incident of execution), which is required to the Mayor of a municipality to that within a month meet with the liability burden on the City Council under a final ruling, warning that failure to do so, he shall personally (yes, the Mayor) a weekly penalty payments to full implementation.

The novelty lies not in itself the imposition of fines (since it is a measure already provided by law, in particular in Article 112 of Law 29/1998, of the Administrative Courts), but that is take hold of this original article, thing is that it escapes from what has been happening so far.

However, although surprised by the vigorous use this article, is no less true that it must be recognized that a reading of that Auto seems to follow a certain "fatigue" of the Court with respect to the particular case to resolve, since, besides the time elapsed since the sentence was issued, the City even had included in their approval of any item budgets to allow compliance of debt, and this despite the proven conclusion of a long-term loan.

Anyway, we have to wait to see if this lone decision of the Court of Andalusia is well accepted in other courts and that, if so, the sand promises. Who wants to be mayor then?

Juan Torres ZalbaArpa Lawyers Eurojuris ConsultoresMiembro of Spain