The Yaiza City Council has not yet decided what its next step will be to recover the public land occupied by Kikoland, once the Supreme Court has rejected Juan Francisco Rosa's last appeal to try to avoid that eviction. The Supreme Court's order is dated November 11, although the City Council told La Voz this Wednesday that they are still studying how to continue this process that began more than three years ago, when the City Council declared the agreement signed in 2004 by the then mayor, José Francisco Reyes, null and void.
For the moment, they affirm that this Thursday the mayor, Óscar Noda, plans to meet with the City Council's lawyer to analyze this issue, after Rosa has exhausted all the avenues he undertook in the Courts to annul that plenary agreement.
The first sentence was dictated in April 2018 by the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 3 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, and was subsequently ratified in December 2019 by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands. Both rulings concluded that the agreement signed by Reyes was illegal and also described the facts as "especially serious and evident". Later, Juan Francisco Rosa filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which has not even been admitted for processing, concluding that it did not have "sufficient grounds" or "cassational interest". In addition, the Court condemns Rosa to pay the costs generated also with this last appeal.fu
Free transfer and without any report
Under the agreement signed in 2004, the City Council freely transferred three plots of 30,000 square meters for 50 years, without even establishing the payment of a fee. One of these plots is occupied by Kikoland and another by a mini-golf course at the Playa Dorada hotel, while the third, located between the Princesa Yaiza and the Papagayo shopping center, has not yet been used.
"It is not only the absence of legal, technical or audit reports, but also the slightest procedure for achieving the agreement," stated the sentence that has now been definitively ratified. In addition, the ruling reproduced a good part of the opinion issued by the Advisory Council at the request of the Yaiza City Council, which commissioned a report before taking the annulment of the agreement to the Plenary.
That opinion, on the one hand, concluded that the agreement was approved in its day with an "absolute omission of the procedure", since not even a report from the Secretariat or the Technical Office assessing the legality of the agreement was drawn up. But in addition, it warned that rights were granted to the company "without meeting the essential requirements for it".
Among the numerous reasons for nullity of that agreement, the legal reports questioned that a clause had been included allowing the transfer to be extended beyond the 50 years initially planned, also establishing that at that time Rosa's company would be given preferential treatment if it was put out to tender. Similarly, it concluded that allowing "a private company the private use of public green areas violates the legal system."
Rosa and Reyes, charged for that agreement
In addition to this procedure to annul the agreement and recover that public land, the occupation of this space is also being investigated in criminal proceedings, in a case opened following a complaint filed by the former councilors of Podemos in the Cabildo, Carlos Meca, Pablo Ramírez and Griselda Martínez.
Within these proceedings, the businessmen Juan Francisco Rosa and Juan Luis Lorenzo, the former mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, and the former secretary of the City Council, Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes, have already been charged. Both Reyes and Bartolomé Fuentes have already been convicted in other cases for having granted illegal licenses to Rosa.
Although the businessman has not yet testified in the case, in which he is summoned on February 13, he had appeared in the proceedings and even filed appeals requesting its dismissal. However, his claims have been rejected both by the investigating judge and by the Public Prosecutor's Office, which considers that there are indications to continue investigating and even to determine if there are more people to whom "criminal responsibility may be demanded".
