The Supreme Court questions many sanctions and administrative proceedings

BarcelonaMany administrative sanctions may be of dubious validity. Through a ruling, the Supreme Court has tightened the requirements for administrative notifications, which could call into question many sanctioning procedures, tax assessments, and administrative files. Failure to comply with certain criteria in notifications, such as not including even a very short or summarized description of the reason for the notice, can invalidate the procedure, warns Unive Advocats, a specialized law firm. The ruling indicates that the high court's decision can be applied generally, regardless of the procedure or subject matter. This extends its scope to administrative sanctions, tax proceedings, traffic fines, and immigration procedures, among others. According to the lawyers, simply including the file number in the delivery notice is insufficient to interrupt the procedural deadlines. "It is not enough to prove that an attempt was made to notify; it is essential to demonstrate that this attempt met minimum guarantees of providing information to the citizen," such as a description of the reason, the firm emphasizes.

The ruling stems from an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Justice of Madrid, which upheld a previous decision by an administrative court and resulted in the expulsion from Spain of the affected individual, a Paraguayan citizen. For the notification to be valid, according to the high court, the relevant Administration must expressly record the date of the attempted notification, the recipient's identity, and also "a minimal reference to the essential content of the notified act." In the case before the court, attempts were made to deliver the notification by mail on two different days and at different times, as established by law. Finally, the decision of the Spanish Government Delegation in Madrid was published in the Official State Gazette (BOE), without detailing the reasons.

Identify the act

The ruling states that the attempted notification must "in some way identify the act being notified" and, in this case, "the reference to 'procedural resolution' would have sufficed." The Supreme Court opines that the ruling's criterion does not constitute excessive formalism, "but rather a substantial requirement for the effectiveness of administrative acts, since notification is the mechanism that allows citizens to exercise their right to defense." Consequently, "a defective notification cannot produce legal effects nor interrupt the statute of limitations or prescription periods," according to the law firm, whose partners are law professors and lecturers. The firm's lawyers understand that the ruling's doctrine obliges public administrations to review their notification protocols and the way they document attempts made, including those made through postal services. Otherwise, many procedures could be affected by expiration, with the consequent annulment of sanctions or administrative resolutions. Unive Advocats interprets the Supreme Court ruling as "establishing a clear and demanding standard regarding notifications."