"I regret, once again, the Haría government group's determination to create a conflict where there is none." This is how the president of the Cabildo, María Dolores Corujo, has stated, after the order of the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 5 of Las Palmas that has rejected the request of the northern City Council to annul the agreements reached by both institutions on the Cueva de los Verdes.
"Out of institutional loyalty, out of respect for the people of Lanzarote and, especially, of Haría, I do not intend to reproduce the spectacle that was experienced in previous legislatures. Now it is time to solve the problems that others created and that is my commitment," added the president of the Cabildo, after learning of the judicial ruling, which is also the second setback suffered by the Haría government group in the same week in the Cueva de los Verdes lawsuit.
The order, in which the Court reminds the Haría City Council that it was the "maker" and "co-author" of said agreements, implies a new condemnation of the City Council to pay the costs. A fact that Corujo highlights and believes that should be interpreted "as a certain reproach from the court for the lack of foundation of its claims."
As pointed out from the Cabildo, after the new government team of the Haría City Council was formed, it raised two procedures: the first requesting the execution of the sentence and the second, requesting both the annulment of the agreement signed in the last legislature, and the addendum approved last November. However, both have been rejected by the courts.
In its order, the magistrate points out that the City Council's intention to annul both documents cannot prosper, because it cannot be proven that the agreements reached intend to evade the execution of the sentence to which they refer.
That is so, the Court clarifies, because "the requesting corporation itself is one of the parties involved in the administrative act that is intended to be annulled. "It is tantamount to stating that the Haría City Council intended to sabotage itself in order not to implement a judicial ruling that favored it," explains the order. In addition, the magistrate recalls that the order by which the homologation of the agreements was initially denied is not final.
