A Supreme Court ruling this summer has highlighted the limits of administrative action in real estate enforcement proceedings in southern Gran Canaria. The decision, issued by the Fourth Section of the Administrative Chamber, dismisses the appeal filed by the General Treasury of the Social Security (TGSS) in Las Palmas and upholds the annulment of a seizure carried out on 50% of a registered property located in San Bartolomé de Tirajana. The court ruling brings to a close a protracted dispute, protecting the property rights of an affected resident who was unintentionally deprived of her legal defense by the Administration's failure to properly notify her of key resolutions in the case.
The events date back to 2009, when, in the context of a debt accumulated by an individual with the Social Security system, the General Treasury of the Social Security (TGSS) extended the lien to a property located in the southern tourist municipality. The institution erroneously considered the property to be the debtor's sole property, ignoring that it was jointly owned as marital property. The affected party filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Provincial Directorate of the TGSS in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in December 2009. However, this key administrative act never reached her legal address due to an error in the notification process, and the property was subsequently auctioned off to a third party.
The most striking aspect of the case, which led to its appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration, was the considerable amount of time that had elapsed. The owner did not file the administrative appeal until 2019, almost ten years later, after requesting the files and discovering the true status of the proceedings. The General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) firmly argued that the claim was untimely, claiming that the interested party should have taken legal action at the time, taking advantage of the principle of administrative silence, and that the initial decision had become final and accepted.
However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Luis María Díez-Picazo Giménez, completely dismantles this argument and reinforces the rights of citizens against improper burdens imposed by the Administration. The ruling emphasizes that a notification carried out incorrectly or to the wrong address does not constitute a mere remediable defect, but rather a complete lack of notification. Since there is no conclusive evidence that the citizen was aware of the decision through other means, the legal time limits for appealing never began to run.
The ruling reiterates that the legal obligation to resolve and notify rests unequivocally with the public administration. Forcing citizens to presume rejection by silence in order to avoid losing their rights would transform a fundamental right of the citizen into an intolerable coercive burden. Consequently, the Supreme Court rules that filing the administrative appeal a decade later cannot be considered untimely, as the fundamental right to effective judicial protection has been curtailed and the enforcement action lacks its essential element of effectiveness.
