{"id":11910,"date":"2018-01-19T10:00:56","date_gmt":"2018-01-19T09:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/abogados\/uncategorized\/success-stories-grants-eligible-preliminary-technical-projects-administrative-litigation-lawyers"},"modified":"2018-01-19T10:00:56","modified_gmt":"2018-01-19T09:00:56","slug":"success-stories-grants-eligible-preliminary-technical-projects-administrative-litigation-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/abogados\/success-stories\/success-stories-grants-eligible-preliminary-technical-projects-administrative-litigation-lawyers","title":{"rendered":"Success Stories: Grants. Eligible Preliminary Technical Projects. Administrative Litigation Lawyers."},"content":{"rendered":"

Success Stories: Grants. <\/span><\/span>Eligible Preliminary Technical Projects. Administrative Litigation Lawyers.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

IN DIEM Lawyers obtains a favorable ruling<\/strong> from the TSJA, which declares that preliminary technical projects for facility adaptation to prove the technical and economic viability of a project are eligible for grants<\/strong> and, therefore, cannot be denied for being included within the justified economic items.<\/p>\n

Issues arising in relation to “preliminary projects” often generate conflict<\/strong>, as regulations generally state that investments cannot begin until the applicant is notified in writing that the project meets the conditions established in the regulatory bases to be considered eligible for incentives (as seen in the Order of January 18, 2012, art 3.1.c).<\/p>\n

In particular, the ruling of the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF ANDALUSIA (SEVILLE SEAT), ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION CHAMBER, FIRST SECTION, in Appeal 476\/2017, issued on December 19, 2017, upholds the corresponding appeal and annuls the contested administrative resolution of the Innovation and Development Agency of Andalusia, which declared the loss of the right to collect the claimed incentive. <\/p>\n

The grounds put forward by our defense focused on the violation of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, as well as an error in the assessment of evidence by the lower court.<\/p>\n

Considerations of the TSJA Ruling.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The TSJA recalls that the object of the litigation is a grant\u2014a modal donation ad causa futurum\u2014and therefore:<\/p>\n

1st.- The recipient assumes the burden of complying with all obligations established in the governing regulation or carrying out the behavior required by it.<\/p>\n

2nd.- The nature of the grant, linked to the activity it aims to promote or subsidize, makes it essential to verify the fulfillment of the requirements that grant the right to its concession and that the purposes for which it is granted are met.<\/p>\n

For these reasons, the recipient of the grant is placed in a unique position reflected in the aforementioned General Grant Law 38\/2003 and Law 3\/2004 of the Autonomous Community, which obliges them to submit to relevant checks and to reimburse the amounts received if they were obtained without meeting the required criteria.<\/p>\n

The Ruling warns:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ruling has understood that invoice 22 was provided with the justification account and paid before the notification of the document referred to in the previously transcribed provision, without it being considered a preliminary feasibility study, as the plaintiff presented it to prove the investment.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Art. 3.1.a) of the Order of January 18, 2012, requires as a condition for obtaining the grant that projects be \u201ctechnically, economically, and financially viable.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

And subsequently, it continues:<\/p>\n

“For the submission of the application, the prior preparation of a project was necessary to identify the investment action to be carried out and allow for the assessment of technical and economic viability, without its preparation being considered the start of the investment action, as inferred from the aforementioned art. 3.1.c). The description of invoice 22 as a ‘general project’ must be understood as preparatory work necessary for the presentation of the project, as otherwise it would not be possible to determine the necessary equipment or the local adaptation works required for the investment in the incentive application.” <\/em><\/p>\n

The Administration has not proven that said invoice includes fees for project execution activities, nor is it inferred in any way from the documentation in the administrative file.<\/em><\/p>\n

Based on the above, the appeal must be upheld.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The proceedings were led by our colleague Casimiro Gal\u00e1n Garrido<\/a><\/strong>, obtaining for the client the recovery of a significant economic amount used to amortize the investment made.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Grants. Eligible Preliminary Technical Projects <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Preliminary technical projects related to grants will be eligible as long as their necessity for the investment action is identified, thus allowing the project’s viability to be verified. It is essential to confirm their status as preparatory work, and they must never include fees for project execution activities. <\/p>\n

In any case, this type of expenditure, regardless of the applicable regional regulations, will remain highly controversial… therefore, maximum prudence and consideration of these types of expenses within the items to be subsidized and claimed is recommended.<\/p>\n

If you need more information or require defense in litigation relating to any Grant or Eligible Preliminary Technical Projects, do not hesitate to contact our team of specialist Administrative and Administrative Litigation Lawyers.<\/p>\n

Administrative Litigation Lawyers | <\/b>IN DIEM: Experience+<\/sup>.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

IN DIEM Lawyers<\/strong> has a very combative Administrative and Administrative Litigation Law Area<\/strong>, currently led by Matilde Flores Esquivia<\/strong>, a professional specializing in Administrative Law who has served as a Magistrate-Judge in Administrative Litigation Courts<\/strong>, as well as other Legal Directors of the IN DIEM team with experience as Magistrate-Judges and State Attorneys.<\/p>\n

We invite you to meet our colleagues in the Area, such as \u00c1ngel Jos\u00e9 Del Pino Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez<\/a><\/strong> and Casimiro Gal\u00e1n Garrido<\/a><\/strong>, also with experience as Magistrate-Judge and State Attorney<\/strong>, respectively. You have an entire team specializing as Administrative Litigation Lawyers ready to assist you. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

IN DIEM Lawyers: Malaga, Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Huelva…<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

In the practice of the Administrative Litigation Lawyer<\/strong> specialty, we challenge Public Administration resolutions, especially when these resolutions do not comply with the law. In this sense, our goal is to provide our clients with maximum satisfaction. Currently, IN DIEM Lawyers has offices in Malaga, Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, and Huelva. We are at your disposal for whatever you need. You can reach us via the IN DIEM Lawyers Phone (+34) 901 900 071.<\/strong> For emergencies, you can reach us at the 24-Hour Emergency Lawyer Phone IN DIEM: (+34) 610 667 452.<\/strong> <\/p>\n

For more information on the Administrative and Administrative Litigation Area of IN DIEM Lawyers, you can follow the link HERE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Would you like to know more about us? We leave you this brief presentation video: <\/p>\n