That the courts give us the reason when we turn a contest may be deemed a triumph and a second chance for all tenderers who do not accessed the audiovisual or radio – license at stake. But the expression the courts give and remove licenses that can be summarized the idea raised, and which is heard on numerous forums, you have to qualify it. The courts can throw down licensing in popular expression – if they consider that the successful tenderer not meets basic requirements for contract management capacity and solvency-, but in this case the beneficiary would not be the appellant, but the tenderer who has been second in the ratings. Therefore, the best valued second could benefit from an eventual appeal raised by a third party, which is an absurd situation. Similarly, you can see previous demand – procedural irregularities requiring repeated procedures to conform to the legality, which would be the more usual course. In this case, to effects of avoid misunderstandings, should be pointed out that when you decide to appeal an award, presenting timely demand, what he really wants is that the courts review the performance of management conforms to the canons of the legality scrupulously for that, otherwise, act accordingly.
But this did not imply that they have to necessarily give the license to the appellant, we reiterate. This would jump lightly all those who have obtained a valuation higher than this the best valued second, third, etc and so on-. And that would be, obviously, illogical. It should make it clear beforehand, that, in very few cases, judicial organs will challenge the assessments made by the Commission designated for such purposes. Indeed, there is a principle, the so-called principle of insustituibilidad of the technical criterion of the administration by the Tribunal, whereby this is always going to respect the decisions made by the aforementioned Commission, in the exercise of the discretion understood as powers which assists selection between equally valid alternatives provided that they are not taken in flagrant irregularity or arbitrariness, which obviously is the assumption that they can be questioned.