The Supreme Court specifies its jurisprudence regarding the extension of the effects of final judgments provided for in Article 110 of the Law on Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Supreme Court Judgment nº 1050/2022, July 20th).
The Supreme Court has ruled in the judgment number 1050/2022, July 20th, on the extension of the effects of final judgments provided for in article 110 of Law 19/1998, of July 13th, regulating contentious-administrative jurisdiction (hereinafter, LJCA).
In the specific case, the appellant –a teacher hired as a temporary professor in the public school–had requested the extension of the effects of a judgment recognizing the administrative and financial rights to seniority obtained by another temporary professor. Since the case had identical characteristics, the Madrid Administrative Court nº 11 upheld the extension of the effects of that judgment.
The Autonomous Community of Madrid challenged that decision before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (hereinafter, TSJM), first, because it considered that the decision was contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, secondly, because an appeal in cassation was pending before the Supreme Court (SC) which sought to determine precisely whether the recognition of the rights in respect of which the extension of effects was sought was admissible. However, the TSJM dismissed the challenge to be admissible and the Autonomous Community of Madrid brought a cassation appeal before the SC
The SC conclude that the purpose of the regulation of the extension of the effects of final judgments is to avoid multiple and repetitive proceedings when they deal with tax matters, personnel in the service of the public administration or market unity, provided that the established requirements are reunited and, in particular, the obligation that the judgment to be extended must be in accordance with the law. For this reason, the SC affirms that the goal of Article 110.5.b) is to contrast it with the case law applicable to the specific case, in order to avoid the extension of a ruling that is contrary to law.
In this regard, the SC specifies that this exercise of comparison also requires consideration of the pronouncements of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Constitutional Court in cases in which the extension of the effects discussed could be contrary to their respective interpretations of European Union law or the Spanish Constitution.
Finally, the SC also considers that, in those cases in which a cassation appeal on the question determining the extension of effects is pending, it is appropriate to suspend the incident promoted until the final decision.
