EXPIRY IN ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS PROCEEDINGS
From the date of the infraction report, the administration has a period of 6 months in which to impose an administrative sanction, that is, to issue a decision. This is established by the Article 21 of the Common Administrative Procedure Act, while Article 23 restricts the possibility of extending that period to exceptional circumstances only.
EXPIRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS:
The Supreme Court, in its ruling of 15 April 2015, likewise ruled on the expiry of administrative proceedings in a case where the maximum time limit for issuing a decision had been extended. The Court found that not all available means had been exhausted to justify treating the extension as exceptional:
"...From an examination of the provision in question (Article 42.6 of the LRJPA, Spain's former Common Administrative Procedure Act), the following key aspects of the enabling clause must be highlighted, as introduced by the reform of that Act carried out by Law 4/1999 of 13 January (RCL 1999, 114 and 329):
a) The power to grant an extension is limited to the authority competent to resolve the boundary delimitation proceedings (the Minister for the Environment), or to that authority's hierarchical superior.
b) This power provides for two possible procedural routes: where the decision is taken by the authority competent to resolve the boundary delimitation, a "reasoned proposal from the instructing body" is required; where the decision is taken by the superior of the competent authority, the legislation requires a proposal from that competent authority itself.
c) The legal enabling clause in question is grounded exclusively in the existence of a specific procedural circumstance: namely, that prior to the expiry of the time limit for issuing and notifying the decision, it can be assumed that there will be a "failure to comply with the maximum time limit for resolution". Furthermore, such a failure may only arise from the two specific causes or circumstances set out in the provision:
1. "The number of applications submitted".
2. The number of "persons affected" by the proceedings (in this case, the delimitation of the public maritime-terrestrial domain).
d) The enabling clause set out in Article 42.6 of the LRJPA, as analysed here, has in turn a dual dimension or consequence:
1. The natural or standard consequence where, on the basis of either of the two grounds mentioned, a "failure to meet the maximum resolution deadline" may be assumed, is limited to the possibility of "making available the personal and material resources necessary to ensure proper and timely processing".
2. The exceptional consequence or option consists of being able to "agree to an extension of the maximum resolution and notification deadline".
e) For this second, exceptional option, namely, the extension of the deadline for resolution, to be viable, the provision requires two conditions to be met. These cannot be treated as merely formal requirements, as the decision to extend must be taken:
1. "With clear reasoning setting out the circumstances involved", and
2. "Only once all available means have been exhausted".
f) Finally, as regards timing and reviewability, the provision states that the maximum deadline that may ultimately be agreed "may not exceed that established for the conduct of the proceedings..."
Limitation periods for administrative penalties arising from work-related accidents:
The rules governing expiry in penalty proceedings arising from a work-related accident due to failures in safety measures operate in the same way and the same rules apply.
We have attached here a Link to the ruling establishing when the limitation and expiry periods begin to run.
Contact us and we will be happy to assist:
