Administrative contentious procedure

The Supreme Court (TS) analyzes a case in which an Administration extends a seizure on a property that it considers exclusive to the debtor, but the other party (the spouse) argues that the property is actually jointly owned , that is, of the marriage. In that context, a resolution that had dismissed an appeal against that extension of the seizure is challenged.

The key point is not so much in the seizure itself, but in how the administrative resolution was notified. The TS appreciates that the notification was not done correctly because it was carried out at a address that was not the correct one for the interested party. And this is not a simple "formal defect" since if a notification does not arrive as it should, the affected party may not become aware of the act and, therefore, cannot defend themselves in time. In the words of the TS's own approach, there is a "lack of notification" and, therefore, the act cannot produce the effects that depend on that notification (for example, that deadlines start running and access to justice is closed).

Therefore, although the contentious-administrative appeal was filed almost 10 years later , the TS considers it admissible since it is not proven that the interested party was aware of the resolution through other means, nor that their lack of knowledge was due to a lack of diligence. Furthermore, the TS emphasizes an important idea that there is an option to understand dismissed an appeal due to administrative silence does not replace the duty of the Administration to resolve and notify expressly, and those who expect an express response should not be harmed by this non-compliance. All of this is connected to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.