|
|
When an administrator is notified of a subsidy refund (in the event of having received the previously recognized economic amount) or, where applicable, a loss of the right to collect said amount (in the event that it has not yet been liquidated), It has different defense arguments to be able to revoke said administrative act. One of the possible reasons for opposition to such unfortunate news is that there could have been a possible violation of the Principle of Proportionality which, as we well know, must govern every subsidy act and which finds its maximum expression in articles 30.8 and 37 of the General Subsidy Law. The Principle of Proportionality requires a different solution, because the conduct of the beneficiary of the subsidy shows a willingness to comply and because the purpose of the aid has been fulfilled, through the undertaking of the project, which no one has questioned. Thus, for example, the aforementioned article 37.2 of the LGS establishes that: “ When compliance by the beneficiary or, where applicable, collaborating entity is significantly close to total compliance and an action unequivocally aimed at satisfying their commitments is accredited, the amount to be reimbursed will be determined by the application of the criteria set forth in paragraph n) of section 3 of article 17 of this law or, where appropriate, those established in the regional regulations regulating the subsidy .
In the Judgment of , we remember that; “The STS of reasons that the principle of proportionality allows the use of certain grading criteria for possible non-compliance with the conditions imposed when granting subsidies”; “the impact that that anomaly has on the entire Administration-beneficiary relationship Canada Mobile Number List must be assessed, highlighting the connection between proportionality and equity. And, along the same lines, the most recent STS of maintains that, in application of the principle of proportionality, the concurrent circumstances in each case must be weighed, for the purposes of determining the degree of non-compliance. The principle requires weighing the causes of non-compliance with the conditions imposed determining the granting of the subsidy and evaluating the actions of the beneficiary, aimed at significantly satisfying the public interests pursued, and provides an interpretative criterion of the obligation of reimbursement.
As an example, and for greater abundance, the STSJ Madrid Contentious-Administrative Chamber of June 3, 2015 illustrates this position , which expressly provides: “Having stated the above, we must point out that this Chamber (Section 8) has been considering that in order to resolve the controversy that has arisen, it is necessary to assess the nature of the non-compliance on which the reinstatement order is based since what obligation it refers to, since the obvious and serious cases of non-compliance, such as those cases in which the amount of the subsidy has not been used for the purposes for which it was granted or that the works have not been carried out, with those other cases in which, although there may be any breach, these are not breaches that can be classified as serious nor do they affect the essential obligations provided for in the Grant Order. Well, in the present case, it is not disputed that the subsidies granted for Projects numbers 87, 2650 and 3459 have not been allocated to the project that was approved at the time and that the planned works were executed.
|
|
发表于 2024-3-12 16:56:22