Revision Appeal and Public Complaints

This brief fixes a moment: the day on which the enforcing Administration was formally warned, with the harm still avoidable.

What it requested

• The suspension of the cross-border attachments under way (A.41).
• The regular communication of the proceedings to the interested party in his country, in accordance with the same instrument — Directive 2010/24/EU — that the AEAT invoked to enforce.
• The refund of the VAT borne and retained during years of activity, documented in the invoicing of the works (A.46, A.66).

What the Administration replied

Non-admission for being out of time — applied to an appeal against proceedings processed through notifications that did not reach the interested party. The file thus maintains two things at once: that the notifications were valid to enforce, and that the time limit ran against the person who did not receive them.

The procedural moment

The appeal is from October 2016: prior to the consummation of the expropriations. What came afterwards — the loss of the properties, the eviction (A.55) — happened with this formal warning registered in the AEAT's archives. The piece deactivates any construction of the case as administrative oversight: there was a warning, a date and a signature.

How to verify it

Compare the date of the appeal with the dates of the later expropriations; read the basis of the non-admission alongside the notification records of the file (A.41). The incompatibility between the two documents is the object of this annex.

Contrast with the original file

The original appeal appears in Alicante Original (DOC-0221), together with the agreement that did not admit it for being out of time (DOC-0220) and its acknowledgement of notification (DOC-0222): the paradox of demanding a time limit from someone who was not personally notified, documented piece by piece.