The Supreme Court has settled a lawsuit that has lasted for more than a decade and has done so by rejecting the last appeal filed by the Government of the Canary Islands to try to save the Master Plan for Use and Management of the Chinijo Archipelago. The ruling, issued on December 20, confirms the latest ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and definitively annuls the approval of this document, which was carried out in July 2006 by the Cotmac. In addition, it warns that the declaration of natural park of the Chinijo Archipelago "has lost its validity", as the procedures established by law for these spaces have not been fulfilled.
The Master Plan was appealed in its day by the family that owns Alegranza, which since then has obtained several judgments that have partially given it the reason. Initially, the Justice annulled two articles of the document that affected that island of the Chinijo archipelago, but later the Supreme Court ordered to issue a new ruling. Finally, the last ruling annuls the complete approval of the document, although for a reason different from the one that had been initially estimated.
Specifically, what has led to invalidate the text is the absence of a Natural Resources Management Plan (PORN) of the area, which should have been approved previously. "The absence of PORN invalidates the Master Plan for Use and Management of the natural park", says the new ruling, which recalls that what the PRUG does is to order the "execution and development of the PORN", so it makes no sense if the previous document does not exist.
The "pretension" of the Canarian Government, "unheard of" according to the ruling
"What is really regrettable is that after decades of its declaration, there is no basic structuring document of the protection required by the basic and European regulations for these natural spaces that lead the protection that is assigned to them and that should precisely constitute the content of the PORN. What is really unheard of is the pretension that the mere formal declaration of the natural space is sufficient to ensure its protection", stated the ruling of the TSJC that has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, it concludes that the declaration of the natural park "became ineffective" by not adapting to the laws, which establish that a Natural Resources Management Plan (PORN) of the area must be drawn up before its declaration or within one year from it. "The lack of approval of the Management Plan could not have any other consequence than the lack of effectiveness of the rules that declared the park", insists the Supreme Court, which clarifies, however, that the declaration could regain "effectiveness and validity with the approval, even later and extemporaneous, of the mandatory PORN".
The PIOT "does not contemplate even remotely what is necessary"
In its appeal, the Government of the Canary Islands argued that the elaboration of this document was not necessary in this case, as the declaration of natural park had occurred prior to the entry into force of that law, and also that the regulation of this space was included in the Island Plan of Lanzarote. However, the ruling rejects both arguments. "What is established in the Island Planning Plan of Lanzarote is not enough", concludes the ruling, which responds that in that document "there is not a minimum reference to the content of what should have been the PORN". "Its content does not contemplate even remotely what is proper and necessary", he adds.
Regarding the PIOT, the Court points out that this does not mean that it is "illegal", but that it has "ineffectiveness" with respect to the declaration of the natural park of the Chinijo Archipelago, which "has lost its validity", at least until the Management Plan is elaborated. In addition, it rejects the rest of the arguments raised by the Government of the Canary Islands and imposes the payment of the costs generated with its appeal, underlining that there has been neither "defenselessness" nor "incongruence" or "absence of motivation" in the judgment of first instance.
Regarding the other claim of the family that owns Alegranza, which also claimed compensation for "deprivation and limitations of use", the judgments issued so far had already rejected it, considering that it is not compatible with the annulment of the Plan and that, in addition, that should be resolved in another appeal.