coercive impositions
The Valencia ITV Association of Privileged Agencies, known as Aecova, has submitted paperwork to the Ministry of Finance asserting that it holds exclusive authority for the verification of facilities and assets slated for return. The organization argues that this verification should occur before contract termination, and that minutes confirming the scheduled verification must be issued in advance. This is to ensure the ITV service is ready to be public by late February and early March. (Source: Aecova)
The body contends that conducting verification while the concessionaire remains on site is practical; without the concessionaire’s presence, determining the asset condition at the moment of contract termination would be difficult. Aecova has called for clarifications on the modifications, investments, and their degree of suitability related to the verification process. (Source: Aecova)
Aecova objects to article 165.2 of Law No. 13/1995, which states that during a precautionary period before the return, the authorized administration body should implement provisions to guarantee the delivery verification under agreed conditions. (Source: Aecova)
References to the Generalitat’s Law on Finance and the Economic Model indicate that when assets revert to Generalitat ownership, the ministry authorized to handle transfers is the Ministry of Finance and the Economic Model, in line with Articles 10, 12, and 14. (Source: Aecova)
According to Article 5 of the same law, transferred property is considered public. In this context, Consell’s Legislative Decree No. 3/2022, dated 22 April, authorized the establishment of the Societat Valenciana d’Inspecció Tècnica de Vehicles, SA. The decree also references the establishment of ITV facilities under the framework of Law 53.3, Economic Model, and related provisions of Articles 5 and 26. Aecova argues that the goods should rightfully be received by the Generalitat Valenciana rather than remaining under the Ministry of Finance’s capacity. (Source: Aecova)
In a similar vein, the association asserts that the Treasury must issue the appropriate instructions and define the procedure for purchasing, making available, and transferring the received goods to the intended recipients. It calls for the issuance of status minutes before any other department or administrative body takes control. (Source: Aecova)
Furthermore, Aecova emphasizes that the contract should be verified at the moment of termination. Without this verification, there would always be lingering doubts about whether the assets being returned are in the condition stipulated by the agreement. The association notes that the specification of the law supports this interpretation. (Source: Aecova)
On the topic of coercive impositions, Aecova criticized what it described as the sole set of indications received to date from the Ministry of Sustainable Economy. The association argues that, if the contract were terminated under such terms, it would infringe on rights and impose post-termination obligations that are often viewed as unlawful. The concern is that no comprehensive guidance has been provided on how the service and return process should be conducted, including delivery methods and guarantees. (Source: Aecova)
The lack of clear procedures creates significant uncertainty for concessionaires who must protect their rights and obligations during the transition. Aecova asserts that companies have not been informed of a transparent, workable process for the return of goods, which adds risk and confusion to an already delicate phase. (Source: Aecova)