According to the ruling of the Chamber for Contentious Administrative Court of 17 September 2010, edificatory limitations due to existence of good cultural interest, are not entitled to compensation , not involve any expropriations for, but a legal limitation on the right edificatorio that society must support appeal.
A) The appeal ruling recognizing the right of the applicant to be compensated by being forced to modifying the original construction of a building, as a result of the discovery on the site of his ownership of the remains of the Roman wall of Zaragoza and its required maintenance.
A) The appeal ruling recognizing the right of the applicant to be compensated by being forced to modifying the original construction of a building, as a result of the discovery on the site of his ownership of the remains of the Roman wall of Zaragoza and its required maintenance.
. Notes
the TS in the right applicant to the local government when reporting that the contested decision is vitiated by inconsistency and lack of motivation, because the trial court does not take into account the reasons put forward in opposing the original application relating to the absence of unlawful injury and lack of causation between the harm suffered by the plaintiff contends the instance and the performance of the region. Resolving the lawsuit on the terms that he was raised, said the Board with respect to the requirement of illegality of the damage, the constraints imposed on society edificatory appeal by the Law 16/1985 on English Historical Heritage, by the appearance in Solar remains of the Roman wall of Zaragoza-considered public property, "not involve any expropriations, but a legal limitation on the right appeal edificatorio that society must bear.
B) The object of the suit was the partial the administrative appeal filed by the company now here appeal against decision of Minister of Culture of the Government of Aragon, dated April 10, 2001, rejecting the request of liability made by that society, following the discovery in a plot owned by the appellant, the remains of the wall of Zaragoza and its necessary conservation, such party is compelled to modify its original plan to construct a building on the site of note, private, with respect to the initial project square of 94.45 meters and 77.88 meters basement floor square. For the damaged property, but believed that this killing as "necessary" to be imposed on the property and rights of the claimant, this should not become an arbitrary and authentic without any consideration to plunder the property and therefore requested the entitlement to appropriate compensation, not only because it is inferred from the Expropriation rules and Article 139 of Law 30/1992 on the Legal and Administrative Procedure, but mainly because it required by Article 33.3 of the English Constitution and Article 43 of the Heritage Act Historical.
.
words, the operation of public cultural services responding to an interest of the latter nature resulted in injury and property rights in the particular character of the institution not only deprive plaintiff of squares of 94.45 meters and 77.88 meters basement floor square of the initial project, but by the cessation of activity which caused damage undoubtedly unique, effective, capable of economic assessment and individualized. "
C) seems necessary to point out, regarding the requirement of unlawfulness of the damage, which essentially defined for conduct contrary to law that the person undergoing it is the duty to bear it, bad it qualify as wrongful the constraints edificatory taxes today 'society and appealed by the Law 16/1985 of 25 June on English Historical Heritage, in fulfillment of the purpose or goal set in Article 1, Article 44.1 qualifies as capital public domain as artefacts and materials that have values \u200b\u200bthat are typical of English Historical Heritage and are discovered as a result of excavation, removal of land and works in any form or by chance.
Therefore, as the Roman wall of Zaragoza a public good, it is inconceivable that the constraints imposed edificatory involve any expropriations, as error is supported by society here appeal and the trial court.
What is actually observed in the case on trial is a legal limitation on the right appeal edificatorio that society must bear.
regional and municipal administrations involved in the sphere of competence which they are entitled in equity, are limited, subject to strict rules of application, to ensure that implementation of the proposed works do not deteriorate or disappear remains of the Roman wall of Zaragoza.
There is, therefore, unlawful injury. As recalled by the Supreme Case May 20, 1998, appeal 1339/94 - the illegality or wrongfulness "only occurs when the person concerned had not been required to bear the damage or injury and duty to bear the damage or injury to occur in cases where the law and normative group it justify such detriments arising in a way express or implied. Thus, an examination of the judgments of the Supreme Court April 7, 1919 May and December 19, 1989, among others, suggests that the essential criterion for determine the illegality of damage or injury to a particular application of a legal rule or policy should be whether or not concur legal duty to support the damage, since the restrictions or limitations imposed by a rule, precisely because of the general character of it, must be supported in principle by each of the individual members of the group affected, the public interest. "
.
www. indemnizacionglobal.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment