Uztaro 112 (2020)

Tipikotasun-, proportzionaltasun- eta erruduntasun-printzipioak Administrazio Zuzenbide Zehatzailean eta horien isla 2015eko SPAJLn

Egilea(k):
Andoni Polo Roca
DOI:
10.26876/uztaro.112.2020.4
Jakintza-arloa:
Zuzenbidea
Orrialdeak:
63-85

Laburpena:

Estatuaren zigortze-ahalmenaren agerpena dugu Administrazioaren zehapen-ahalmena. Hala, printzipio ugarik arautzen dute ahalmen publiko hau, berme materialak zein formalak jasotzea helburu dutenak, baina tipikotasun-, proportzionaltasun eta erruduntasun-printzipioak izango zaizkigu gatazkatsuen, horien egitura eta eduki zaila kontuan hartuta. Horri gehitu behar diogu, halaber, printzipio horiek arautzen dituen legea aldatu egin zuela Espainiak 2015. urtean 40/2015 Legearekin, urriaren 1ekoarekin, Sektore Publikoaren Araubide Juridikoarenarekin. Horrez gain, non bis in idem printzipioa ere aztertzea beharrezkoa zaigu, Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren (EBJA) azken epaien ondorengo egoera, batik bat.

Gako-hitzak: Zehapen-ahalmena -- Tipikotasuna -- Proportzionaltasuna -- Erruduntasuna -- Erantzukizuna

[Title]

The principles of typicality, proportionality and culpability in Administrative Sanctioning Law and their reflection in the Law 40/2015, of 1 October, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector

[Abstract]

The sanctioning power of the Administration is a manifestation of the ius puniendi (punitive power) of the State. Thus, it is governed by various principles that have the purpose of offering material and procedural guarantees, but there are three of them that are the most problematic, due to their structure and content: the principles of typicality, proportionality and culpability. To all this, we must also add that Spain amended the law that included those principles in 2015, with a new law: the Law 40/2015, of 1 October, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector. Does the new law adequately incorporate these three principles? We must, furthermore, analyze the non bis in idem principle and its situation after the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 2018 and 2019.

Key words: Sanctioning authority -- Typicality -- Proportionality -- Culpability -- Responsibility