The Seventh Chamber of the Contested-Administrative Division adjudicated on the first request. Injunctive relief requested in Repsol’s appeal cAdvance payment of the provisional tax established by the aforementioned law against models 795, 796, 797 and 798.
The Court considers that the refusal to suspend does not amount to irreparable harm to the energy company, because if the appeal is finally accepted The repayment of what was paid with the payment of compulsory interest would be completely reversible.
Thus, in this case “damages arising from non-suspension will only mean fulfilling the obligation to make a declaration. as provided by the Ministerial Decree”.
And it adds “Obviously, it’s a completely reversible case and compensable damages if the claims put forward in the case, which must be formulated by the appellant company, are admitted.”
“serious damage to the general interest”
Moreover, the Court finds, on the contrary, that if the Decision and with it the Law are suspended, “It seriously harms the general interest by making collection of the tax impossible.”
It draws attention to the fact that if he accepts the injunction in question, he would not have fulfilled “one of the requirements of the Law stating that it is the primary purpose of collection” in order to demand it. “In these times of energy crisis and inflation, a greater effort, that is, a show of solidarity from great fortunes, to those with greater economic capacity,” he said.
The court therefore found that the injunctive relief in which Repsol was concernedIt would mean “petrification of the legal system”. Because, by taking the precautionary measure regarding the Decree of the Ministry of Development, “the implementation of a law that has detailed justification in its explanatory statement and which has nothing to do with this Department will be paralyzed.” that is, it is not fully empowered to abolish norms by the force of law”.
On the other hand, despite Repsol’s pointing out that in no event did it seek suspension through precautionary justice of the law, “The fact is that such an effect would be inextricably linked with the adoption of the requested injunction.”
Inflation and the Ukrainian war
Likewise, the Chamber emphasizes that the reasons for applying this temporary tax are contained in the law itself.Look at the rise in inflation, the impact of the Ukraine War, supply problems from the pandemic, or the meager increase in wages.
And he insists that the court should not consider these arguments because the courts “They will not be able to determine how the provisions of a general provision should be written in place of the provisions canceling, and they will not be able to determine the content of the annulled provisions.
The National Court also notes that on February 10, Repsol denied his initial claim. It can suspend the Ministerial Decree by taking extremely precautionary measures, that is, without requesting a report from the Administration.