Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 6:07:28 GMT
Question of cassational interest
The appeal is limited to determining the amount of compensation that must be granted to the appellant company as a result of the annulment of the administrative resolution that prevented it from accessing a bidding process aimed at obtaining aid for the storage of oil during a time frame.
Reasoning of the Court
“The determination of the amount of compensation in cases in DJ USA which unlawful damage derived from an administrative act subsequently annulled that has had a negative impact on the patrimonial sphere of the affected person is appreciated, does not have specific rules for its quantification outside the references. contained in article 34 LRJSP , which establishes that compensation will be calculated in accordance with the valuation criteria established in tax legislation, forced expropriation and other applicable regulations, weighting, where appropriate, the prevailing valuations in the market. In cases of death or bodily injury, the assessment included in the scales of current regulations on compulsory insurance and Social Security may be taken as a reference .
Thus, the trial court was able to use different criteria to quantify the amount of compensation intended to compensate the appellant entity for the damage suffered by not having been able to participate in the bidding process to obtain such aid.
The use of 6% of the industrial profit that could be obtained as a quantification criterion, regardless of whether it is contemplated in art. 131 of Royal Decree 1098/2001, of October 12 to quantify the base bidding budget in works contracts, is not contrary to law but is one of the possible ones, among many others, that can be used to set the amount of said compensation, including the simple fixing of a lump sum amount that is considered compensation for the damage suffered. There are, undoubtedly, others, but the one used is not contrary to law.
In response to this, the appellant maintains that the annulment of the act prevented him from being able to participate in the process and that the comprehensive reparation should cover the total amount of the aid he failed to receive and the expenses he had to make for the contracting of deposits to be able to have stored the tons of oil offered. Such a claim cannot be shared. The receipt of the aid was conditional on compliance with a limitation on the sale of stored oil during a certain period of time, a limitation to which said entity was not subject , so the receipt of the comprehensive aid without any limitation would generate a benefit. without compensation of any kind, which would give rise to unjust enrichment.
The appeal is limited to determining the amount of compensation that must be granted to the appellant company as a result of the annulment of the administrative resolution that prevented it from accessing a bidding process aimed at obtaining aid for the storage of oil during a time frame.
Reasoning of the Court
“The determination of the amount of compensation in cases in DJ USA which unlawful damage derived from an administrative act subsequently annulled that has had a negative impact on the patrimonial sphere of the affected person is appreciated, does not have specific rules for its quantification outside the references. contained in article 34 LRJSP , which establishes that compensation will be calculated in accordance with the valuation criteria established in tax legislation, forced expropriation and other applicable regulations, weighting, where appropriate, the prevailing valuations in the market. In cases of death or bodily injury, the assessment included in the scales of current regulations on compulsory insurance and Social Security may be taken as a reference .
Thus, the trial court was able to use different criteria to quantify the amount of compensation intended to compensate the appellant entity for the damage suffered by not having been able to participate in the bidding process to obtain such aid.
The use of 6% of the industrial profit that could be obtained as a quantification criterion, regardless of whether it is contemplated in art. 131 of Royal Decree 1098/2001, of October 12 to quantify the base bidding budget in works contracts, is not contrary to law but is one of the possible ones, among many others, that can be used to set the amount of said compensation, including the simple fixing of a lump sum amount that is considered compensation for the damage suffered. There are, undoubtedly, others, but the one used is not contrary to law.
In response to this, the appellant maintains that the annulment of the act prevented him from being able to participate in the process and that the comprehensive reparation should cover the total amount of the aid he failed to receive and the expenses he had to make for the contracting of deposits to be able to have stored the tons of oil offered. Such a claim cannot be shared. The receipt of the aid was conditional on compliance with a limitation on the sale of stored oil during a certain period of time, a limitation to which said entity was not subject , so the receipt of the comprehensive aid without any limitation would generate a benefit. without compensation of any kind, which would give rise to unjust enrichment.
