Urban planning replotting
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Expiration in the final settlement of replotting
It was discussed, in a rather specific conflict, but easy to understand, whether a final settlement file within a forced replotting (that is, the distribution and adjustment of land and expenses in an urban development) had "expired" due to taking too long to resolve. In this case, the Regional administration approved the final settlement account of a replotting linked to the execution of a sector of the general plan of the municipality. The problem arose because more than 3 months passed between the initiation of the file and the resolution, and there was also a long delay in notifying it. Therefore, the affected parties challenged the action by saying, essentially: "this has expired, so it is not valid, and return what was paid to us."
The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) ruled in their favor. Their idea was that since it is a procedure initiated ex officio by the Administration, the general 3-month deadline for resolution applies; if exceeded, the file becomes invalid and, consequently, the return of the fees paid is required (citing Law 39/2015 art. 23.1 and 25.2).
The regional administration appealed to the Supreme Court (TS) and argued the opposite, that this is not an independent "common administrative procedure," but an integrated action within the replotting process , and therefore the specific urban planning deadline of 5 years from the approval of the replotting applies (RGU art. 128 and 129).
The TS upheld the appeal arguing that the expiration does not apply to the general procedure, because the final settlement is part of the replotting process and is not an autonomous procedure. Additionally, it clarifies an important point, that even if the 5-year deadline is not met, that would be a non-invalidating irregularity , that is, does not automatically invalidate the act. Therefore, the Supreme Court annuls the previous judgment and orders the proceedings to be reverted so that a new resolution is issued.
If you feel harmed and dissatisfied with an urban planning action, our professionals can advise you in the defense of your rightsRELATED CONTENT
-
Trademark
Use of the expression "property management" to describe services coinciding with a trademark
-
Administrative acts
The prior notification does not express administrative will or generate administrative silence
-
Public contracts
The reservation in extensions conditions the contractor's right to compensation

This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.