Post by account_disabled on Feb 19, 2024 23:39:01 GMT -5
Therefore, it is not true that neither “in some forums” nor in political parties has there been an attempt to eliminate prior appointment. Just to recover its voluntary nature to be able to access the registries and basic care offices, abandon the exceptional situation and return to normality once and for all .
Thirdly, it is difficult to believe that a body called the Taxpayer Defense Council and which states in the report that its function is precisely the protection of the rights and guarantees of taxpayers would use the same report to attack us . And on top of that, it does so by distorting the original argument . By misinterpreting that they want to completely eliminate the prior appointment (and not appreciating that the real objective is to recover its voluntary nature to access registries and basic care offices), it is accused that with this request "we would find ourselves with a more appropriate system of past centuries than the 21st century, with important drawbacks that it is still possible to remember today .
This statement is, to say the least, curious Fax Lists because it was precisely the widespread and indiscriminate imposition by many Public Administrations of the mandatory nature of prior appointments that caused a return to the 19th century, updating, as Javier Gómez Taboada has said , Don's 19th-century “Come back tomorrow.” Mariano José de Larra for the current “ Do you have an appointment ? ” ”; Lampedusian update that leads us to the same result: the citizen has to return tomorrow (hopefully) because they do not attend to him without an appointment today.
Section 1.2 of the report is titled “The principle of good administration is not opposed to prior appointment .” And we agree on this, but as long as the appointment is voluntary when it comes to accessing the registration assistance offices (old records) and basic citizen service offices.
On the contrary, if in order to access these basic services a prior appointment is mandatory, it must be remembered that this principle of good administration together with other legal and constitutional principles prevents this .
a) The principle of and the right to good administration is not derived only from art. 41 TFEU, but directly from the Constitution, current legislation and the reiterated jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
The report begins by stating that the principle of good administration is derived from art. 41 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and that “in view of its content, it is obvious that said provision refers to substantive and basic aspects of all administrative procedures, not to the assistance work in which the system of prior appointment from the Tax Agency.”
Thirdly, it is difficult to believe that a body called the Taxpayer Defense Council and which states in the report that its function is precisely the protection of the rights and guarantees of taxpayers would use the same report to attack us . And on top of that, it does so by distorting the original argument . By misinterpreting that they want to completely eliminate the prior appointment (and not appreciating that the real objective is to recover its voluntary nature to access registries and basic care offices), it is accused that with this request "we would find ourselves with a more appropriate system of past centuries than the 21st century, with important drawbacks that it is still possible to remember today .
This statement is, to say the least, curious Fax Lists because it was precisely the widespread and indiscriminate imposition by many Public Administrations of the mandatory nature of prior appointments that caused a return to the 19th century, updating, as Javier Gómez Taboada has said , Don's 19th-century “Come back tomorrow.” Mariano José de Larra for the current “ Do you have an appointment ? ” ”; Lampedusian update that leads us to the same result: the citizen has to return tomorrow (hopefully) because they do not attend to him without an appointment today.
Section 1.2 of the report is titled “The principle of good administration is not opposed to prior appointment .” And we agree on this, but as long as the appointment is voluntary when it comes to accessing the registration assistance offices (old records) and basic citizen service offices.
On the contrary, if in order to access these basic services a prior appointment is mandatory, it must be remembered that this principle of good administration together with other legal and constitutional principles prevents this .
a) The principle of and the right to good administration is not derived only from art. 41 TFEU, but directly from the Constitution, current legislation and the reiterated jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
The report begins by stating that the principle of good administration is derived from art. 41 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and that “in view of its content, it is obvious that said provision refers to substantive and basic aspects of all administrative procedures, not to the assistance work in which the system of prior appointment from the Tax Agency.”