The latest appeals against the sentence of the Ence del Concello de Pontevedra and the state were rejected by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected what it is the last refuge of the Pontevedra city council and the state attorney before this court against the judgment that confirmed the presence on in estuary of Pontevedra until the year 2073. Both institutions had promoted two separate cases of annulment of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, citing helplessness, in one case, and in the case of the Pontevedra City Council, with the understanding that the relevant issues were not assessed. The Council of Pontevedra claimed with this petition that the process return to the Land Courtthat he rendered a favorable judgment and declared null and void the extension by which Ence uses the Costas land at the mouth of the Pontevedra River.

The report of the municipal legal services alluded to the fact that in the appeal filed by the City Council at the time against the extension granted to Ence (which was accepted by the National Court and subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court), there was five arguments question the continuity of Ence. At one time, the National Court accepted this appeal, but limited itself to consideration of the first of them, the one that alluded to Article 32 of the Coastal Zone Act, which calls into question the sustainability of activities on the land of the maritime-terrestrial property if they can be developed in other locations.

The judgment of the National Court from July 2022 accepted this argument of the Council and annulled the extension. However, the Council asserted, it did not consider the other arguments. The thesis was that the Supreme Court did not take into account the other arguments, which is why the legal services of the Pontevedra City Council believe. “helplessness» interests of the municipal administration.

However, the Supreme Court now rejects this thesis of the Pontevedra City Council, which also alluded to the fact that “the judgment does not examine the legality of the contested decision in accordance with the requirements imposed by Directive 2006/123/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services on the internal market”.

However, the argument was rejected because the Supreme Court understands that the Coastal Act mandates that Granted concessions grant rights only to their holders “and not to other third parties because these concessions either recognized those previous holders or were declared missing, so the opening of the procedure of free competition with other subjects was not appropriate,” the sentence reads.

As for the arguments for rejecting the proposal of the State Attorney’s Office for the determination of invalidity, the Supreme Court understands that they were previously processed in the previous appeal.

Both institutions, the Pontevedra City Council and the State Attorney’s Office, were also ordered to pay court costs, estimated at around three hundred euros.