La impugnación en la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa de providencias irregulares que debieron ser auto

  1. MIGUEL ÁNGEL RECUERDA GIRELA 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Journal:
Revista española de derecho administrativo

ISSN: 0210-8461

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 203

Pages: 217-248

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Revista española de derecho administrativo

Abstract

The challenge of interlocutory court orders (providencias) is made through the internal appeal (recurso de reposición) in accordance with the provisions of article 79 of Law 29/1998, of July 13, governing the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (UUCAU). It is not admissible the appeal or the appeal in cassation against interlocutory court orders (providencias), given that these two types of appeals are reserved for the challenge of court orders (autos) and judgments (sentencias) that meet certain requirements provided in the UCA. However, despite the words of the UCA, the appeal must be admitted against interlocutory court orders (providencias) that should have taken the form of a court order (auto), in the cases in which those court orders (autos) could have been appealed according to article 80 of the UCA. Likewise, the appeal of cassation must be admitted against interlocutory court orders (providencias) that should have taken the form of a court order (auto), when these court orders would have been subsumed under any of the circumstances of Artic1e 87 of the UCA with the concurrence of the cassational interest. The purpose of this study is to explain the reasons why the appeal and the cassation appeal should be admitted against those irregular interlocutory court orders (providencias) that should have taken the form of court orders (autos).

Bibliographic References

  • Banacloche Palao, J. y Cubillo López, J.I. (2012), Aspectos fundamentales de Derecho Procesal Civil, Madrid: La Ley, pág. 126.
  • De la Oliva Santos, A., Díez-Picazo, I., y Vegas Torres , J. (2016), Curso de Derecho Procesal Civil II. Parte General, Madrid: Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces, pág. 288.
  • Garberí Llobregat, J. (2012), Derecho Procesal Civil, Barcelona: Bosch, pág. 231.
  • Lastres, F. (1877), Procedimientos civiles y criminales: Madrid: Librería de Victoriano Suarez, pág. 9.
  • Lorca Navarrete, A. M. (2014), Introducción al Derecho Procesal, San Sebastián: Instituto Vasco de Derecho Procesal, pág. 261.
  • Montero Aroca, J., Gómez Colomer,J. L. y Barona Vilar, S. (2018), Derecho jurisdiccional I. Parte General, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, pág. 28.
  • Quintana Carretero,J. P. (dir.), (2013), Comentarios a la Ley de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa, Valladolid: Lex Nova Thomson Reuters, pág. 79.
  • Recuerda Girela, M. A. (2016), “El nuevo recurso de casación contencioso-administrativo y el interés casacional objetivo para la formación de la jurisprudencia”, Administración de Andalucía: Revista Andaluza de Administración Pública, núm. 94.
  • Santamaría Pastor, J. A. (2017), 1.700 Preguntas sobre Contencioso-Administrativo, Madrid: Francis Lefebvre, pág. 763.
Data source: Dialnet