Monday, March 1, 2021 – 2:11 PM
The advisory body warns that if the decree were contested, the Constitutionalist would undoubtedly admit the claim based on these deficiencies.
- Advertisement -
The PP resorts to the Constitutional Court for the “concealment” of the report of the Council of State on the decree of European funds
The Government traces Plan E in projects to obtain new European funds
The Council of State opens the opinion, which the Government intends to keep secret, on the decree-law that regulates the management and execution of European funds, showing its “concern” about the “manifest insufficiency” of the regulatory impact report that accompanied the project because “it suffers from serious deficiencies in its content.”
And he quotes in a special way: the concurrence of a situation of extraordinary and urgent need that is done in generic terms; nor does it refer to the fact that a good number of the provisions contained in the decree apply exclusively to the public sector and, finally, the requirement of budgetary impact is not met since it is “important to preserve rigor in the management of income and public expenses “.
In spite of everything, the Council points out that, beyond the specific observations made, the project deserves “as a whole” a “favorable opinion” as it is appreciated as an “effort” made by the Government to articulate within a very briefly a set of measures that are intended to allow better management and execution of the different actions that can be financed with European funds.
The advisory body nevertheless warns that if the decree were challenged, the Constitutional Court would undoubtedly admit the claim based on the deficiencies that it cites at the beginning of the opinion.
Added to all this is the fact that the reports issued by the Delegated Intervention of the General Intervention of the State Administration in the proposing Ministry and by the Office of Coordination and Regulatory Quality have not been incorporated into the file that was sent to him.
The Council accepts the formula of decree law chosen by the Government to regulate the management and execution of the European Funds but insists that more details are necessary to substantiate the need for urgency, especially for the measures included in it and have “vocation of generality”. And it insists, in this sense, on the convenience that the decree law is subsequently processed as a bill.
It also points out that, given that the decree involves a series of modifications or alterations to the content of other provisions, “legal security” problems may arise. For this reason, it recommends the review of said provisions by modifying the corresponding royal decrees.
The Council also makes problems with respect to the lack of specification of the scope of application of each of the competency titles that the royal decree collects. The difficulty lies in the fact that the norm incorporates provisions that are exclusively applicable to the General State Administration and the state public sector and that, therefore, should not have a basic character.
In this sense, he cites articles 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18; Chapter III of Title III; Chapter I and II of Title IV; article 49; the letter a of article 50; section 2 of article 55; Articles 56, 58 and 60; sections 2, 3 and 4 of article 61; sections 2 and 3 of article 62; section 2 of article 63; Articles 64, 65, 66 and 67; Sections 1, 2 and 3 of article 69, as well as the second additional provision, the first transitory provision, the terms established in the third final provision, the fourth final provision and section two of the fifth final provision.
According to the criteria of
Source site www.elmundo.es