Reply 2 of the State Legal Service

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

Reply 2 of the State Legal Service

The State's last brief in proceedings 60/2022 added to its claim an element that deserves to be recorded with precision: the costs.

The final procedure

  • 1 February 2023: Ordering Measure (signed by the Clerk of the Administration of Justice María Asunción Mosquera Louredo, according to the document's electronic stamp) — joining of the appellant's conclusions (A.63) and transfer to the Administration's representative for ten days.
  • In its final brief, the State Attorney reiterates the dismissal of the appeal, seeks the confirmation of the challenged act and requests the imposition of costs on the claimant party.

The 60/2022 dispute, in dates

17-1-2022 — appeal against the Ministerial Order, in time (A.60) → 18-5-2022 — claim formalised on the administrative file delivered (A.61) → 10-10-2022 — State's reply: dismissal, without touching limitation or expert report (A.62) → 10-1-2023 — claimant's conclusions (A.63) → 2-2023 — State's conclusions: sole novelty, the costs → 19-8-2024 — when the CJEU application was filed, the National Court was still to rule

What did not change

Nor in the conclusions — the last procedural opportunity — did the following appear: the treatment of the limitation of Article 66 of the General Tax Act (A.40), the counter-report to the costs expert report (A.49), the explanation of the address on record in the tax archives (A.65). The State position ended the dispute as it began it: maintaining the regularity of the act without touching its three documented defects (A.62).

The request for costs, in its context

The costs are sought against a litigant whom the file describes thus: assets enforced in two countries (A.41), VAT unrefunded (A.46), home lost with a minor in his care (A.55), beneficiary of legal aid in other stretches of the case. The claim is procedurally possible; its addressee is the datum.

How to verify it

Compare the two State replies (A.62 and this one) looking for any argumentative evolution between October 2022 and February 2023. You will find a single novelty: the costs.

The factIn its last brief, the State added no answer to the limitation or to the expert report — it added the request for costs against the expropriated party.
The questionWhat does it say of a procedural position that, in an entire dispute, its only final innovation is to seek costs from the person who lost everything?

Documentary evidence · A.64 · 1 February 2023 · European and international projection
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.