Post by account_disabled on Jan 17, 2024 0:47:34 GMT -8
By resolution of May 27, 2019, the Health Service of Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM) rejected the request presented by Mrs. Gregoria, its temporary statutory officer, for payment of the salary differences for the concept of professional career corresponding to grade II that he had recognized. A contentious-administrative appeal was filed by Mrs. Gregoria against said resolution, and it was upheld by the ruling of April 24, 2020 of the Contentious-Administrative Court No. 3 of Toledo. The estimate was due, according to the ruling, to the fact that the existence of a previous firm and consented impedative act could not be maintained, so the inadmissibility of the appeal alleged for that reason was not appropriate. The ruling of the Albacete Chamber, appealed in cassation, dismissed the appeal of the Community Board of Castilla-La Mancha , confirmin.
g the appeal. The appeal ruling explains that the contentious-administrative appeal, contrary to what was maintained by the Administration, was not inadmissible. It refers to previous rulings of the Albacete Court that rejected this same allegation. The reasons for such a decision are explained by the appeal saying, with support from rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, that the exception of a final and consented act must be interpreted restrictively in order to make it compatible with the Article 24.1 of the Whatsapp Number List Constitution that recognizes the right of access to jurisdiction. And that, in this case, there is a violation of European Law - of Directive 1999/70/EC in the interpretation given to it by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union - and in view of the interpretation of the Court of Luxembourg on the interplay of the .
finality of an administrative act against the primacy and direct effect of European Union Law, there is no justification to prevent the substantive examination of the request and refer it to the ex officio review procedure. Furthermore, it points out that other Chambers of Superior Courts of Justice have reached the same conclusion. Having thus cleared the obstacle opposed by the Administration[1], the ruling of the Albacete Chamber is dedicated to explaining why the administrative decision is contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC [2]. A cassation appeal was filed, the admission order[3] appreciates objective cassation interest for the formation of jurisprudence consisting of resolving the following issues.
g the appeal. The appeal ruling explains that the contentious-administrative appeal, contrary to what was maintained by the Administration, was not inadmissible. It refers to previous rulings of the Albacete Court that rejected this same allegation. The reasons for such a decision are explained by the appeal saying, with support from rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, that the exception of a final and consented act must be interpreted restrictively in order to make it compatible with the Article 24.1 of the Whatsapp Number List Constitution that recognizes the right of access to jurisdiction. And that, in this case, there is a violation of European Law - of Directive 1999/70/EC in the interpretation given to it by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union - and in view of the interpretation of the Court of Luxembourg on the interplay of the .
finality of an administrative act against the primacy and direct effect of European Union Law, there is no justification to prevent the substantive examination of the request and refer it to the ex officio review procedure. Furthermore, it points out that other Chambers of Superior Courts of Justice have reached the same conclusion. Having thus cleared the obstacle opposed by the Administration[1], the ruling of the Albacete Chamber is dedicated to explaining why the administrative decision is contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC [2]. A cassation appeal was filed, the admission order[3] appreciates objective cassation interest for the formation of jurisprudence consisting of resolving the following issues.