Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured texttospeech Empresas de Tecnología Dänemark Charkiw Slowjansk

El Algarrobico's promoter wants to sue for compensation

The hotel promoter in El Algarrobico (Almeria) has asked the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia to lift the suspension it had agreed to in 2016 regarding the two procedures in question.

- 3 reads.

El Algarrobico's promoter wants to sue for compensation

The hotel promoter in El Algarrobico (Almeria) has asked the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia to lift the suspension it had agreed to in 2016 regarding the two procedures in question. Azata del Sol claims that she suffered "damages" from the urban processing of her project by both administrations which made it possible to construct the property. This was a result of a court order at 94% completion in 2005.

After the Supreme Court (TS), in February, agreed not to process the hotel promoter's cassation appeal, which was against two National High Court rulings. The latter concluded that the company is not accredited and that the alleged economic damage are due to the administration. He demanded compensation in the amount of 70 million euros from the Andalusian Board, the city council and the ministry. According to Tinsa's appraisal, the figure included 5 percent for non-pecuniary damages. This was calculated not only based on the property's value but also considering the company's business discredit and non-material/material damage.

Azata del Sol requested that the TSJA reactivate two lawsuits against the Board and the city council. The Andalusian high courts agreed to suspend the two cases in July 2016, until the National Court decided on the two other patrimonial responsibility-related procedures. The Litigation Chamber ruled that there was enough prejudiciality to allow the Board to request the suspension. This was because the existence of these lawsuits within the AN, "prior", to those brought before TSJA could cause lis pendens and Azata Patrimonio's resources against denial of compensation.

The regional administration maintained on this point that all four procedures were based upon the same factual assumption, and that the parties had coincided in them.

The National High Court had already ruled in two cases that the hotel developer was entitled to sue the Board and City Council.

Additionally, it was claimed that compensation should be sought for the fixing of the easement on the maritime-terrestrial public realm of the coast strip where the property was built in 100m. This was later confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Europa Press consulted the order of the TS to declare Azata del Sol inadmissible of Azata del Sol's appeals from the AN judgements that denied compensation. It states that there are not "sufficient grounds" to prove an "objective appeal interest or the statement of the room. It orders the appellant pay the costs. The State administration was accused of a "dilated" and "irregular administrative procedure for the delineation and fixation within 100m of the zone of easement maritime-terrestrial public realm in the coastal strip where the hotel is located." This was after the hotel had been "built with all permits and authorizations, in accordance to the Carboneras Partial Plan from 1988 and the provisional denarcation file which set the protection width at 20 meters."

The claim of the developer against the Board was based on the approval the aforementioned Partial Plan. This would have allowed the strip to be established at 50m "despite the fact the State had reported it should be established with an width of 100m". It also claimed it approved the review of municipal urban planning regulations, "ignoring these recommendations, and granting the corresponding licenses, authorizations, and permits for the opening of this hotel, to the extent that it withdrew power from the City Council to approve El Algarrobico's urbanization project to urbanization of El Algarrobico in 1997."

Finally, the hotel developer claimed that the council granted a building permit for the complex in January 2003 and a favorable environment rating and an activity license on March 3. 2003. The National Court ruled in the opposite and rejected the compensation. A 2012 ruling on demarcation had attributed to the developer the legal obligation to support the width.

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.