[1] The Constitution of 1978 declares in article 103.1 that the Public Administration serves objectively the general interests and acts in accordance with the principles of efficiency, hierarchy, decentralization, deconcentration and coordination, with full submission to the Law.
The Public administrations, in their task of satisfying the general interest, hold a series of exorbitant powers with respect to legal persons of a private nature.
The Town Hall and neighbors are co-owners of the property, having the right to use and enjoy direct and simultaneous neighborhood, whenever possible.
The neighborhood forests in common hand are a special category of property, whose ownership and use corresponds to those who are at any moment neighbors of a certain place (without the intervention of the Town Hall).
Public employment comprises all the cases in which the Administration makes use of natural persons so that, in return for remuneration, they work for the account of the body or entity to which they are attached.
[6] The backbone of public employment rests on career officials, people linked to the Administration by a statutory relationship.
His access and separation from the public service also follow the same guidelines, differing from the career official in the provisional character, as opposed to the alleged stability of the former.
The massive incorporation of labor staff in the service of the Public Administration is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Eventual staff are temporary public employees who have been appointed on a discretionary basis to perform a series of special functions or advice in the administrative apparatus of the State.
On the other hand, imposing a series of formal guidelines reduces the spaces in which the professional officials must act in an excessively creative way (something typical of positions of political trust), with the consequent reduction of arbitrariness in the management of Public affairs.
By regulating the procedure, it will be possible to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative action without affecting labor pressures, which are possible in the private organization, but completely unthinkable in a contemporary Public Administration that operates on a bureaucratic and regulated basis, safe from the changes that come with the political future.
One of the most basic presupposition for which there is responsibility on the part of the Administration is the existence of a qualified damage to the property or rights of a natural or legal person.
Unlike the regime of responsibility regulated in the Civil Code, where the illegality occurs when there is fraud or guilt, in the system of objective responsibility of the Administration, the criterion of illegality focuses on the existence or nonexistence of a duty to support the damage that laws can attribute to subjects.
Likewise, exceptions are included in which a professional with public functions responds personally, as may be the case of the notary.
The cause-effect relationship seems to be an obvious and simple requirement in the framework of the liability of the Public Administration for damages in its action.
Throughout history, three different theories have been applied, focused essentially on resolving cases in which there is a concurrence of causes, which by the way, are the most common assumptions.
The assumptions in which the Administration is the exclusive cause of harm are very small, and the theory was extremely advantageous for the public body, since it rarely had to compensate.
With this, a kind of tacit solidarity was established in which the interest of the damaged subject prevailed, in spite of the arbitrariness of the system.
Finally, the theory of adequate causality, in which the corresponding court selects from among the causes that is suitable to provoke the injury, and decisive for it to occur.
First, when the victim has contributed in causing the damage, the compensation of the Administration was reduced in equal proportion to the degree of intervention of the injured subject.
In addition, full compensation is allowed for cases where the administrative action was notoriously disproportionate (a protest in which the riot police carried fire with the lethal ammunition).
The administrative review is a method to rectify those acts that suffer from some vice of illegality, being also an indispensable prerequisite for the individual who wishes to access the contentious-administrative (In Spain, it is the jurisdictional level that deals with the conflicts of the Administration with the citizens), which this time, it is a reviewer of judicial nature.
Since it was established on our country by the Laws of April 2 and July 6, 1845, and through many vicissitudes, has given a good sample of its virtues since the Act of 27 December 1956, which endowed it with the characteristics that it has today and of the attributions essential to assume its mission to control the legality of administrative activity, guaranteeing the rights and legitimate interests of The citizens against the excess of the Administration.
This principle, according to its importance, is enshrined in Article 106.1 of the Spanish Constitution, which states that the courts control the regulatory power and the legality of administrative action, as well as submitting it to the purposes that justify it.
In the first place, any general provision issued by the Administration by virtue of its regulatory power is subject to contentious review.
According to article 19, they are entitled to appeal: It also contemplates those situations in which the affected are a plurality of people indeterminate or difficult to determine, in which case the standing to sue in defense of these diffuse interests will be exclusively the public bodies with jurisdiction in the matter, Unions and state-level associations whose primary purpose is equality between women and men.
It is initiated by a brief reduced to citing the provision, act, inactivity or action constituting a de facto route that is contested and to request that the appeal be filed.
Both the demand and the answer must respect a structure with the proper separation of the facts, the grounds of Law and the claims that are deduced.
Once the process of hearing or conclusions is concluded, and unless the court decides to practice additional evidence, the suit shall be declared final for judgment.
Appeal filed before the Supreme Court against final judgments, in which laws or legal doctrine are alleged to have been violated, or any essential procedural guarantee breached.