Below is a google translated version (for which I apologise) of an article printed in Actualised Almanzora today and gives more detail on the recent court ruling. This court has basically ruled in a way which reflects what Candido has been telling us since day one!
The recognition of provincial subsidiaries standards as regulations for licensing of works represents a strong backing to the performance of Candido Trabalon and questioned the thirty legal proceedings opened against its urban policy
By ratifying the ruling handed down by the Criminal Court No. 4 of Almeria which acquitted of a crime of trespass to the former Mayor and the rest of your corporation by granting licenses to build five houses in El Cucador, the provincial high instance gives a slam in noses to the stratagem of the Board and the Prosecutor's Office in all the cluster of processes that maintains against who was behind Alderman. The explicit recognition of provincial subsidiaries standards as sufficient legislation to grant licenses for works in the municipality is, moreover, an overwhelming endorsement of the urban action of corporations under the chairmanship of Mocada and questioned the thirty legal proceedings opened against the urban policy of Mocada.
The case was meant to elucidate if the construction of five houses in the neighborhood of El Cucador zurgenera between 2005 and 2006. The trial was held in Almeria Criminal Court No. 4 and concluded, in the first instance, with the acquittal of all the defendants.
Included as defendants, as well as the then-Mayor of the town, Cándido Trabalón, his Deputy Mayor, Manuel Tijeras, the councilmen Emilia Jiménez Pérez, José Antonio Ramos, Juan Morales, Aniceto López and Miguel Marín, as well as the promoter, Jose Torres, and the architects José María Urrea and Francisco Salvador, authors, respectively, of the project and technical based on that report were granted licenses.
The Court issued the acquittal because he understood that soil where the houses were built "had urban character", while the prosecution argued that, pursuant to the law of urban planning of Andalusia, the terrain was "undevelopable".
Why did no. 4 criminal judge to that conclusion? The statement argued that soil was urban based on the provisions of the transitional provision 7 of the law of urban planning of Andalusia, known as LOUA, which establishes that in the municipalities which at the time of the entry into force of the law, on December 17, 2002, "do not have general planning", may be ascribed as those soils that meet at least one of several criteria describing urban including the section 'a' indicates "be part of a core of existing population (...) and have, as a minimum, of the urban services of access rolled through urban, water, sanitation, and low voltage electricity supply."
Based on this and after practice timely test, demonstrated, according to the Court, that "the ground had urban infrastructure paved, electricity, water and sanitation until the accused developer to acquire", and ensures "that the plot is eligible to be considered as urban land" pursuant to "Annex I to the provincial subsidiary rules".
This resulted in the opinion of a judgment of acquittal, which was appealed by the Prosecutor's office before the Provincial Court, whose judges of the section 2 have ratified it. Mocada and yours was granted license correctly.
While the audience repeatedly recognized in its judgment to the LOUA as the law when it comes to classifying soils, adds that "not be ignored the normative ambiguity introduced concerning the subsidiary rules of provincial de Almería, approved by the Ministry of public works and transport of the Junta de Andalucía on 31 August 1987" which contain a list of towns or neighborhoods in Zurgena, among them El Cucador.
But it is more, section the hearing, presided over by Judge Rafael García Laraña, 2nd goes beyond and recalls that "the delegation of the Ministry reiterated later consideration of urban one of those non-core neighborhoods" main - the own village of Zurgena.
The provincial room refers in his argument that "the municipality had legal and technical reports to the licensing" and questioned the conviction of the public prosecutor on appeal the acquittal of Cándido Trabalón and the rest of the defendants when "it desisted from the action" against the technical author of the favourable report which were granted licenses.
Another wake-up call that makes hearing the Prosecutor this related consideration making this about that judgment acquitting Criminal Court No. 4 "lacks legal arguments to argue that the land is urban." Thus, the judgment of the Provincial Court affirms that the argumentation of the Court "is a brief motivation and short development, but the truth is that it expresses (...)" the reasons of fact and law"that lead to the verdict of innocence for the accused.
Cándido Trabalón is welcomed by this new acquittal. P
