{"id":2392,"date":"2018-10-15T12:00:19","date_gmt":"2018-10-15T11:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/?p=2392"},"modified":"2018-10-11T12:48:28","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T11:48:28","slug":"tribunal-supremo-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/tribunal-supremo-8\/","title":{"rendered":"Tribunal Supremo"},"content":{"rendered":"[vc_row type=&#8221;in_container&#8221; full_screen_row_position=&#8221;middle&#8221; scene_position=&#8221;center&#8221; text_color=&#8221;dark&#8221; text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; overlay_strength=&#8221;0.3&#8243; shape_divider_position=&#8221;bottom&#8221;][vc_column column_padding=&#8221;no-extra-padding&#8221; column_padding_position=&#8221;all&#8221; background_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; background_hover_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; column_shadow=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_radius=&#8221;none&#8221; width=&#8221;1\/1&#8243; tablet_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; phone_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; column_border_width=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_style=&#8221;solid&#8221;][vc_column_text]\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW86115629\" lang=\"ES-ES\" xml:lang=\"ES-ES\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW86115629\">STS 1861\/2017: <\/span><\/span><\/strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW86115629\" lang=\"ES-ES\" xml:lang=\"ES-ES\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW86115629\">Aplicaci\u00f3n de la doctrina sobre la cuantificaci\u00f3n de la tasa por utilizaci\u00f3n privativa o aprovechamiento especial de dominio p\u00fablico local sobre la Ordenanza fiscal del Ayuntamiento de Puebla de Don Rodrigo.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW86115629\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><!--more-->[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row type=&#8221;in_container&#8221; full_screen_row_position=&#8221;middle&#8221; scene_position=&#8221;center&#8221; text_color=&#8221;dark&#8221; text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; overlay_strength=&#8221;0.3&#8243; shape_divider_position=&#8221;bottom&#8221;][vc_column column_padding=&#8221;no-extra-padding&#8221; column_padding_position=&#8221;all&#8221; background_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; background_hover_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; column_shadow=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_radius=&#8221;none&#8221; width=&#8221;1\/1&#8243; tablet_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; phone_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; column_border_width=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_style=&#8221;solid&#8221;][vc_column_text]\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>STS 1861\/2017, de 29 de noviembre: <\/b>El Tribunal Supremo desestima el recurso de casaci\u00f3n interpuesto por Uni\u00f3n Fenosa Distribuci\u00f3n, S.A. contra la sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha de 13 de junio de 2016 que pretend\u00eda la nulidad de la Ordenanza fiscal reguladora de la tasa por utilizaci\u00f3n privativa o aprovechamiento especial del dominio p\u00fablico local de las instalaciones de transporte de energ\u00eda el\u00e9ctrica, gas, agua e hidrocarburos del Ayuntamiento de Puebla de Don Rodrigo.<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">El TSJ no estima que exista vulneraci\u00f3n alguna del principio de no confiscatoriedad, ni que el informe t\u00e9cnico-econ\u00f3mico haya quedado desvirtuado por el dictamen pericial aportado por la mercantil.<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">El recurso de casaci\u00f3n planteado ante el TS planteaba, sobre todo, que el TSJ hab\u00eda avalado una ordenanza fiscal con un informe t\u00e9cnico econ\u00f3mico deficiente con \u00aberrores graves de concepto y c\u00e1lculo\u00bb. Sin embargo, el Tribunal Supremo estima que esta denuncia se ha realizado sin mayor sustento que la mera denuncia.<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Aprovecha el TS para recordar su doctrina, ante la cuantificaci\u00f3n de la tasa por utilizaci\u00f3n privativa o aprovechamiento especial del dominio p\u00fablico: no basta con reputar los criterios inadecuados, ya que a los tribunales solo les compete comprobar que la elecci\u00f3n se realiza de manera motivada y razonada, mediante criterios objetivos, proporcionados y no discriminatorios, determinados con transparencia y publicidad. Por ello no es inadecuado acudir al valor catastral del suelo, ni tampoco la aplicaci\u00f3n del coeficiente RM previsto para cumplir el mandato legal de que el valor catastral no supere al del mercado y as\u00ed poder dar cumplimiento a las previsiones del art. 24.1.a. TRLHL.<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/1861_2017.pdf\">Texto completo<span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[vc_row type=&#8221;in_container&#8221; full_screen_row_position=&#8221;middle&#8221; scene_position=&#8221;center&#8221; text_color=&#8221;dark&#8221; text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; overlay_strength=&#8221;0.3&#8243; shape_divider_position=&#8221;bottom&#8221;][vc_column column_padding=&#8221;no-extra-padding&#8221; column_padding_position=&#8221;all&#8221; background_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; background_hover_color_opacity=&#8221;1&#8243; column_shadow=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_radius=&#8221;none&#8221; width=&#8221;1\/1&#8243; tablet_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; phone_text_alignment=&#8221;default&#8221; column_border_width=&#8221;none&#8221; column_border_style=&#8221;solid&#8221;][vc_column_text] STS 1861\/2017: Aplicaci\u00f3n de la doctrina sobre la cuantificaci\u00f3n de la&hellip; <a class=\"continue\" href=\"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/tribunal-supremo-8\/\">Seguir Leyendo<span> Tribunal Supremo<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[105],"tags":[168,6,163],"class_list":["post-2392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-jurisprudencia","tag-dominio-publico","tag-hacienda-local","tag-tribunal-supremo"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2392"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2395,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2392\/revisions\/2395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idluam.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}