The Supreme Court has admitted for processing the incidents of nullity presented last week by the Junta de Extremadura and the owners of Marina Isla Valdecañas. In these requests, the two parties ask the high court to annul its sentence from last month in which it orders the total demolition of the complex, instead of the partial one (what was left half-built, respecting what is in use) decreed. by the Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura (TSJEx) in February 2020. Ecologists in Action has five days to appeal this ruling.
The fact that the Contentious-Administrative Chamber admits the incidents of nullity for processing does not mean that it is agreeing with those who present them. It only means that you understand that there are reasons to study them, and once you analyze them, you will determine whether or not the annulment is appropriate. In fact, different legal sources assume that it will reject them.
They also indicate, however, that the very fact that the incidents have been admitted for processing is relevant, since the most common, statistically, is the opposite, inadmissibility. Luis Díaz-Ambrona, lawyer for the homeowners in the complex, also believes that “it is striking that Wenceslao Olea will not be in the Supreme Court that will study the incidents.”
The alleged partiality
It must be remembered that the first reason cited by both the owners and the Board for requesting annulment was the presumed partiality of Olea and Inés Huerta from Extremadura, for being in the Chamber that ordered the total demolition when they had already intervened in the Valdecañas case in previous moments of the case.
In addition to the partiality of the two magistrates, the regional government cites other reasons that in its opinion represent a violation of the right to judicial protection. They are the distortion of the cassation appeal –that is, it is not resolved as such, but as if it were another type of appeal–, arbitrariness and various types of procedural inconsistency. They are complex legal concepts that address both formal and substantive issues, and which, according to the Board, should lead to the annulment of the ruling issued by the Third Chamber of the fifth section of the High Court.
In it were both Olea and Huerta, who had previously intervened in the judicial case of Isla Valdecañas. The administration maintains that this means that they were not alien to the procedure, as established by law, but that they had prior knowledge of it, which disqualified them from participating in the deliberations and the ruling. They should have been inhibited and they did not, says the regional Executive.
Presence in the TSJEx and the Supreme
In the case of Olea, because it was part of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TSJEx, which in 2011 declared the Project of Regional Interest (PIR) illegal, which allowed the resort to be built on land belonging to the municipalities of El Gordo and Berrocalejo in Cáceres. . The appeal of the Board emphasizes that it was the rapporteur magistrate, that is, the one who, among other powers, was in charge of drafting the sentence.
The promoter of the resort located in the Cáceres municipalities of El Gordo and Berrocalejo did not request the annulment of the Supreme Court’s actions, among other reasons because it prefers not to delay the end of a judicial procedure that began fifteen years ago, according to what its CEO explained in a recent interview on TODAY.
www.hoy.es
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.