Post by account_disabled on Jan 18, 2024 19:50:53 GMT 10
What is at issue in this case is not the general discourse on how Public Administrations and, specifically, the General Administration of the State , contribute to the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage, nor the discretion with which count, but rather the option discussed by the appellant. That is, it is about seeing if, as the lawsuit maintains , it infringes the legal system or if it complies with it . In other words, if Royal Decree 210/2022 in the controversial part of its article 8.2 has exceeded the limits to which the exercise of discretionary powers is subject.
The response to the lawsuit says that the contested exclusion does not begin the due conservation and promotion of Bullfighting and that it is being carried out with the actions mentioned in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Report .
In this regard, and as the lawsuit highlights, neither in the file nor in the text of Royal Decree 210/2022 are there reasons that explain the exclusion , and those offered in its preamble are not considered valid for this purpose since it only says that bu Whatsapp Number List llfighting shows are promoted through other instruments and that each Administration has the capacity to freely decide the sectors or activities of public interest or utility that it promotes and how it does so.
These generic explanations are insufficient when there are specific legal provisions that impose on public powers the obligation to act positively in a certain area, as is the case with Bullfighting. Indeed, the specification that Law 18/2013 gives to the mandate of articles 44 and 46 of the Constitution entails the need for a singular justification of considerable importance as to why bullfighting shows are left out of the Youth Cultural Bonus.
For all of the above, the Supreme Court concludes that Bullfighting has not been given treatment balanced with the significance it has recognized by the legislator, and the exclusion of bullfighting shows from the scope of application of the Youth Cultural Bonus has not been justified.
Grades
[1] Jurisprudence has declared that the mere attribution by the statutes of certain purposes does not serve in itself to establish the legitimacy required by the Law of Jurisdiction to file the contentious-administrative appeal.
[2] For the Chamber, we are not faced with a case in which the mere statutory self-attribution of some objectives is enough to establish legitimation, nor is it a case in which the mere defense of legality is intended: “On the contrary, we We find that the regulation established by article 8.2 of Royal Decree 210/2022 specifically affects the achievement of the specific purposes of the appellant Foundation.”
The response to the lawsuit says that the contested exclusion does not begin the due conservation and promotion of Bullfighting and that it is being carried out with the actions mentioned in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Report .
In this regard, and as the lawsuit highlights, neither in the file nor in the text of Royal Decree 210/2022 are there reasons that explain the exclusion , and those offered in its preamble are not considered valid for this purpose since it only says that bu Whatsapp Number List llfighting shows are promoted through other instruments and that each Administration has the capacity to freely decide the sectors or activities of public interest or utility that it promotes and how it does so.
These generic explanations are insufficient when there are specific legal provisions that impose on public powers the obligation to act positively in a certain area, as is the case with Bullfighting. Indeed, the specification that Law 18/2013 gives to the mandate of articles 44 and 46 of the Constitution entails the need for a singular justification of considerable importance as to why bullfighting shows are left out of the Youth Cultural Bonus.
For all of the above, the Supreme Court concludes that Bullfighting has not been given treatment balanced with the significance it has recognized by the legislator, and the exclusion of bullfighting shows from the scope of application of the Youth Cultural Bonus has not been justified.
Grades
[1] Jurisprudence has declared that the mere attribution by the statutes of certain purposes does not serve in itself to establish the legitimacy required by the Law of Jurisdiction to file the contentious-administrative appeal.
[2] For the Chamber, we are not faced with a case in which the mere statutory self-attribution of some objectives is enough to establish legitimation, nor is it a case in which the mere defense of legality is intended: “On the contrary, we We find that the regulation established by article 8.2 of Royal Decree 210/2022 specifically affects the achievement of the specific purposes of the appellant Foundation.”