Administration

That the courts give the reason us when we resorted a contest can be considered triumph and one second opportunity for all those bidders who did not accede to audio-visual or wireless the license in game. But the expression the courts gives and clears licenses, with which the raised idea could be summarized, and that it is listened to in numerous forums, it is necessary to clarify it. The courts can throw down licenses in popular expression if they consider that the awardee does not satisfy the requirements basic to contract with the Administration capacity and solution, but in this case the beneficiary would not be the appellant, but the bidder who has been second in the valuations. Therefore, the second better valued could benefit from a possible resource raised by a third party, which is an absurd situation. Of equal way, they can appreciate previous demand procedural irregularities that they demand to repeat the proceedings to fit them to the legality, that would be the most habitual assumption.

In this assumption, a effects to avoid ambiguities, agree to need that when is decided to resort an awarding, presenting/displaying the opportune demand, which really is tried is that the courts review that the action of the Administration adjusts to the canons of the legality of scrupulous way so that, on the contrary, they act consequently. But it does not suppose that they must give the license necessarily to the appellant, we reiterated. This would suppose to skip lightly all those that have obtained a valuation superior to this one the second better valued, the third party, etc and thus successively. And this would be, obviously, illogical. It agrees to leave seated well, with previous character, that, in very few cases, the judicial organs are going to question the valuations conducted by the commission designated to the effect.

Comments are closed.