EL PRINCIPIO CONSTITUCIONAL DE SOLIDARIDAD INTERTERRITORIAL EN ESPAÑA Y EN ALEMANIA: APLICACIÓN Y LÍMITES

This article analyses the application of the constitutional principle of fiscal equalization in Spain and Germany focusing on the issue of its limits. To begin with, the Spanish case is presented, including both the autonomous communities under the common system and the Basque Country and Navarre, a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Alberto Vega García
Format: Article
Language:Catalan
Published: Institut d'Estudis de l'Autogovern 2014-10-01
Series:Revista d'Estudis Autonòmics i Federals
Online Access:http://governacio.gencat.cat/web/.content/iea/documents/publicacions/reaf/2014/20/arxius_reaf_20/_reaf20_Vega.pdf
Description
Summary:This article analyses the application of the constitutional principle of fiscal equalization in Spain and Germany focusing on the issue of its limits. To begin with, the Spanish case is presented, including both the autonomous communities under the common system and the Basque Country and Navarre, and paying articular attention to the limits to solidarity which had been foreseen by the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and which have been partly declared unconstitutional due to their unilateral character. Given that these statutory provisions had been inspired to a large extent by the principles followed in Germany, such as the prohibition of a complete fiscal equalization, the second part of the article analyses the legal framework of this country and its interpretation in the constitutional case law. In general, the current situation in both States is not so different, given that, despite the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, the general financing system of 2009 still applies these principles. However, in contrast to the situation in Germany, a notable difference is the asymmetry which exists in Spain due to the limited contribution of the Basque Country and Navarre to fiscal equalization transfers, which is unjustified and therefore should be corrected.
ISSN:1886-2632