The Audience Provincial (Superior Court) has this week made a final ruling on another one of the outstanding court cases regarding building licences in Zurgena and included, in the judicial summary, was the fact that the 3 judges, sitting on the case, ruled that the land was urban and that the issue of the licences etc had been done correctly by Zurgena.
This case also creates a further precedent supporting the THs case for the outstanding ones. This Court is the highest that can rule on these matters and there is therefore no avenue left open for any further appeal in this case.
You can ignore the way La Voz has reported this as we do not recognise its interpretation of the ruling and will examine how they have reported it.
The case relates to the issue of 5 building licences for houses built on a piece of land between Cucador and Los Carasoles. Of the 5 licences granted only 2 houses were built and both of those are unoccupied.
This case also creates a further precedent supporting the THs case for the outstanding ones. This Court is the highest that can rule on these matters and there is therefore no avenue left open for any further appeal in this case.
You can ignore the way La Voz has reported this as we do not recognise its interpretation of the ruling and will examine how they have reported it.
The case relates to the issue of 5 building licences for houses built on a piece of land between Cucador and Los Carasoles. Of the 5 licences granted only 2 houses were built and both of those are unoccupied.
Morning Jim, La Voz sourced this article from the national news service Europa Press who state that they have access to the judgement. In the interests of transparency perhaps you could publish the judgement here (with personal data removed of course) so that we can all read it for ourselves?
ReplyDelete"you can ignore the way La Voz has reported this" I'd prefer not to do this, I prefer to examine the facts and information before I make a judgment - You could learn from this. Sometimes it's better to check for yourself with proper information rather than just relaying "what you are told" and then later having to "apologise" when once again the errors you make are pointed out.
ReplyDelete