The case arises from a quite common situation in urban planning, which is when a city council modifies or approves an urban planning regulation (which is a general norm of the municipality), publishes it in the official bulletin and, furthermore, later personally notifies those who submitted objections during the processing, informing them that those objections have been rejected and explaining what appeals they can file.

The question raised is when presenting a contentious-administrative appeal against a regulation (a “general provision”), the general rule is that the term is two months from the official publication. That was the idea applied by the regional court, which understood that the clock starts ticking only from the bulletin and, therefore, rejected the claim if it was submitted later counting from that date.

But the Supreme Court (TS) clarifies the issue and provides a criterion that protects those who have participated in the procedure. It states that, although the norm is that the term is counted from the publication , if the town hall subsequently carries out a personal notification of the agreement (including the dismissal of the allegations) and also expressly indicates the appeals, then the two-month term begins from that personal notification. The underlying reason is to avoid

insecurity and confusion, if the Administration sends a clear individual communication about the decision and how to appeal, it makes sense for the citizen to be able to count the term from that moment, reinforcing legal certainty and effective judicial protection. Therefore, publication as the “ordinary” starting point, but personal notification afterwards (well done and with appeals) as the “effective” starting point for those who receive it. If you feel harmed and dissatisfied with a decision of the Administration, our professionals are at your disposal for the defense of your interests.