Aragon’s Agricultural Subsidies Reform: Legal Analysis
Consolidated Text on Agricultural Subsidies in Aragon
In May 2009, the Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón (CAA) adopted a consolidated text of the provisions in force. This text addresses several key areas:
- Development and agrarian reform, specifying that benefits cannot be accumulated by the same applicant.
- Subsidies for farming activities.
- The negative nature of administrative silence in grant procedures for all kinds of farming.
The Huesca Farmers’ Association opposes the first measure, arguing that:
- Almost all its members have mixed farms (both agricultural and livestock).
- The provision is seriously detrimental to their interests.
- The measure is illegal because it contravenes the rule of positive administrative silence established in state legislation.
The Government of Aragon, having already resolved and published the awarding of grants for 2009, applies the provisions of the new consolidated text retroactively. This results in revoking aid to farmers that also have livestock, reflecting the economic importance of the activity.
Key Legal Questions
1. Can the CAA approve the revised text? What procedure is required?
Yes, the CAA has jurisdiction in the matter covered by the revised text. Article 71.7 of the Statute of Autonomy of Aragon (EAAr) establishes exclusive powers over livestock and agriculture. The CAA is responsible for administrative procedures (including administrative silence) under Article 71.7 EAAr and 149.18 of the Spanish Constitution (EC).
Procedure:
- According to Article 43.4 of the Parliament of Aragon, the government is delegated the power to approve a revised text by legislative decree.
- This requires that the Parliament authorize the government, through an ordinary law, to consolidate the rules.
- Case: Legislative delegation through ordinary law.
- Result: Legislative Decree, as per Article 28 of the Law of the President and Government of Aragon.
2. Does the Huesca Farmers’ Association have standing to oppose the provision preventing the accumulation of subsidies? What reasons can they argue against this requirement?
When the government adopts a consolidated text, anything that goes beyond the delegation is an *ultra vires* act. Article 28.6 of the Law of the President of Aragon prohibits regulating new provisions not contained in the consolidated texts. There is an *ultra vires* act here. The association cannot oppose the part of the text that has legal nature, but it can oppose the part with an administrative nature. Article 1.1 of the *Ley de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa* (LJCA) provides that the contentious-administrative jurisdiction has jurisdiction to hear appeals against legislative decrees that have exceeded the limits of legislative delegation. The association would have standing to go to court under Article 19.2 LJ.
3. Can the DGA revoke aid once the cases are resolved? What arguments could the association use to oppose it?
Since the subsidy is a positive act and there is no declaration of *lesividad* (harmfulness to the public interest), Article 105 of the *Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo* (LAP) cannot be implemented. The government itself cannot stop the effects of cases without a declaration of harmfulness.
A declaration of harmfulness would deprive the administrative act of its detrimental effects. For those losing the effects, a judicial declaration of nullity is needed, making it necessary to resort to the administrative jurisdiction.
4. What resources or claims may be brought by the association, and before which organs and bodies?
The association can appeal the revocation of grants through an *Recurso de Alzada* (Appeal for Reversal). It has one month to appeal from the notification, as it is an act that ends the administrative route (Article 54 of the *Ley del Procedimiento Administrativo de las Administraciones Públicas*, LPGA).
Judicial review is possible within two months (Article 46 LJ), counting from the day following the notification of the act concluding the administrative action. This would be before the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over all matters not attributed to the courts of the Autonomous Communities.