The promoter of El Algarrobico’s hotel has filed a lawsuit against the Board of Directors and the City Council of Carboneras before the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia to seek “comprehensive damages” for the “property and moral” damages caused by “illogical, unreasonable, and arbitrary actions of both administrations in “altering” the legal support that was given to the building.
Azata says that “the responsibility stems from the lack coordination of all administrations involved in the matter and the lack rigor required.” He transfers to the high-court that it is “more or less proven” that execution of the Partial Plan for the ST-1 sector in which the hotel is located was not possible to execute due to the fault>>> of both the Board and City Council.
Although the exact amount of “comprehensive repair” it claims is not stated in the June 3 letter, it claims that it received a total of 70.042,712.38 in 2017, through the administrative channel, which is currently appealing to the court. euros as Azata del Sol and 28,811,649.93 euros as Azata Patrimonio.
The extension of the demand, consulted by Europa Press, seeks to dismantle foundation by foundation the resolution of the Junta de Andalucia of May 2017 that dismissed the developer’s claim for patrimonial responsibility since the contentious-administrative procedure, which has been suspended for prejudicial waiting for the National Court to resolve two lawsuits also for alleged patrimonial responsibility, in this case of the State, City Council and Board, dates back to 2014.
Azata states that Azata’s 2012 ruling, which recognizes the area in the Cabo De Gata-Nijar environmental regulations of 1994, “makes clear” that the ST-1 section “never ought to have been classified as Urbanizable” in the Subsidiary Norms, which, in the end, “allowed it urbanization and partial construction”.
He points out that a 2016 ruling in which the Board was urged to go before civil court to register in his own name the Algarrobico Estates, over which he retracted 2006 for 2.3million euros, “records that this right to withdraw was exercised on a material and legal fact that no longer exists and, therefore, irregularly”.
The hotel promoter claims that there is no tolerance for the Junta de Andalucia’s actions. This is contrary to what the administration asserts when it defends that the Junta de Andalucia was directed in this case within reasonable and reasoned margins.
He refers to the fact that El Algarrobico was included in the zone D2 of the Cabo de Gata-Nijar Natural Park by the Andalusian government in 1997. This was a change in planimetry that was made by the Andalusian government to accommodate this “modification by means of fact”.
The 1994 PORN didn’t contain any lack of definitions in the protections that would justify the changes in its planimetry or cartography in the manner in which they were carried out. He explains that there was no rational or reasonable reason for them to do so and their actions are clearly illegal.
Azata’s claim for compensation was dismissed by the Consultative Council of Andalusia. The resolution “expressly acknowledges” that Azata has a patrimonial obligation.
According to the Advisory, this would “entail a potential liability derived from a change in planning”, which must then be deemed “totally unrelated” to the fact the hotel was constructed “illegally, under the Law of Coasts.
Promoter also rejected the argument of Andalusian Government that damages would have been “compensated through the retract that it did not exercise if it wasn’t for the pressure of media and environmental organizations that existed in 2006 on construction of the hotel.” Since “it had no environmental interests in the ST-1 sector prior to that date”,
It is evident that the amount deposited corresponds with the farm acquisition value and is ultimately the Law’s value. But, now we are looking at it from a different perspective.
“The victim must not be injured, and the compensation must cover all damages,” transfers the demand.
It states that to determine “reparative value”, other aspects and factors must be considered. The Board considers that the amounts consigned “do not correspond with the legal and physical reality existing on the land at the time of the retraction” and that this “hardly” compensates for the payment of the land’s value in 1999, “when it had yet begun its urbanization.”
The promoter of El Algarrobico also assures the TSJA the procedures substantiated by the National High Court in which the compensation was denied are not related to this claim or “res judicata”, since the former referred specifically to the 1995 maritime-terrestrial public realm demarcation file and the alleged irregularities in its processing.
They also stated that they have not dealt with “the arbitrarious and irregular modification of environmental regulations in Cabo De Gata-Nijar”, specifically the PORN of 1993, or the inclusion of the ST-1 sector in an “improper” manner in Subsidiary Regulations of Carboneras, and their “consequences for the development of ST-1 sector, on which the hotel was constructed.
The TSJA is obligated to extend the demand to acknowledge and declare the patrimonial liability of the defendant administrations jointly, severally, as well as Azata Patrimonio’s right to repair the damage and compensate for moral and patrimonial injuries.
The court is asked to determine the amount that the Junta de Andalucia or the Carboneras City Council must pay, based on the evidence and the economic value of the damages sustained. This includes compensation for moral damages.
