Contentious-Administrative Claim, No. 2 of Alicante

Apolozan case · ERDF fraud (Bilbao / Alicante / EU)

Contentious-Administrative Claim, No. 2 of Alicante

With the criminal avenue closed (A.47, A.48) and the nullity unanswered (A.50), the contentious one remained. This brief opened it.

The claim

  • Filed on 14 October 2020 before the Contentious-Administrative Court No. 2 of Alicante; ordinary proceedings 444/2020 (NIG 03014-45-3-2020-0001745).
  • It challenges the enforcement proceedings channelled through Directive 2010/24/EU out of time (A.40, A.41) and seeks the ex officio review of the void acts.
  • It provides the Villajoyosa expert certificate (A.49): the evidence that the debt, calculated without costs, does not stand as it was assessed.

The move by the State Legal Service

On 17 November 2020, the State Legal Service replied seeking that an order be handed down with referral of the proceedings to the Chamber — the procedural acknowledgement that the object exceeded the court's scope. The State's written positions on this front (A.62, A.64) form their own evidentiary line.

What was raised

For the first time on the tax front, a judicial body received together: the calendar of the limitation, the costs expert report and the notifications file. Proceedings 444/2020 are the container from which derive the unattended interim measures (A.53, A.54) and the briefs before the National Court (A.60A.63).

How to verify it

Read the prayer for relief of the claim and the November reply. A documented claim and a referral sought: the two pieces fix the starting point of the last internal front.

Contrast with the original file

The judicial start appears in Alicante Original: the initial contentious appeal (DOC-0187) and the order admitting the OP 444/2020 for processing by Court No. 2 of Alicante (DOC-0188).

The factClaim 444/2020 brought together for the first time before a judge the limitation, the expert report and the notifications — and the State Legal Service itself sought the referral of the matter to a higher instance.
The questionIf even the State's defence moved the matter towards the Chamber, what withheld for years the response on the merits about out-of-time attachments with no hearing?

Documentary evidence · A.52 · 14 October 2020 · Main documentary reconstruction
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.