Then, the basic rule is that all entities of public administration have active legitimation to start a contentious-administrative proceeding against a tortious action of public interest and the legality, still thats requirement that this faculty is planned in an authoritative law. (As opposed to Nieman Foundation). We say only because the standard does not exclude from its scope of application to any entity outside the radio station of the Act, as entitled to formulate administrative contentious demand. This uncertainty must be cleared with the revision of the list of subjects that have the legitimacy to act passive contained in article 13 of the law N 27584: demand contentious administrative addresses against: (5). The particular holder of the rights declared by the Act whose nullity seeks to the administrative entity that issued in the case envisaged in the second paragraph of article 11 of this law. 6. The administrative entity that issued the Act and the person on whose behalf derived rights of the Act contested in the case envisaged in the second paragraph of article 11 of this law. () Indeed, and stop a little here, notably there are two assumptions: 1) the respondent may be managed that turned out to benefit with a null administrative act (No. 5), and therefore only the public entity has expired to which the deadline granted by law to annul ex officio the administrative act, will be imbued with active legitimization, and in these cases we will be acting in accordance with article 11 of the same Act in accordance with the numerals 202.4 and Article 202 of the Act No.
27444 202.5. This would be the so-called process of prejudicial effect. (2) However, the second of the assumptions made reference to a completely different configuration to the prejudicial effect process, because the respondent is not only the individual but also the public certification authority of the administrative act that benefited the first.