The Deputy of the Common has urged the Urban and Natural Environment Protection Agency (Apmun) of the Government of the Canary Islands to comply with the final demolition orders of three of the 14 homes in La Bufona. In a letter addressed to the director of this agency and dated last Friday, Jerónimo Saavedra points out that, given the "inactivity" of the owners of the homes, who have not demolished the part they should have, it is the Apmun who must "carry out" those orders. In addition, he warns the Apmun that it has the "unavoidable" duty to "restore the legal order disturbed" by illegal works and that any decision "to the contrary" to a demolition order could constitute a "criminal offense" and, therefore, the Deputy of the Common should act, as required by law, reporting it to the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The resolution of the Deputy of the Common, which is based on a complaint filed by the Murillo family (who reported the case of La Bufona), responds to the arguments that the Agency expressed in a previous report. Among its arguments, the Apmun alleged that "there are several judicial disputes that prevent the demolition orders issued by that Apmun from being carried out", of which only 3 are final for now. However, the Deputy responds that those three resolutions "resemble the sanctity of res judicata". Among those houses with a final demolition order, Eduardo Murillo denounced that the house of the island president of the Popular Party, Astrid Pérez, has been under demolition order since 2012.
The "inefficiency of the Apmun" in its day has led to "having to demolish what is illegal"
In order not to execute that demolition yet, the Agency also pointed out that "reasons of technical rationality and effectiveness and efficiency" prevent these orders from being executed individually. Jerónimo Saavedra responds to that point forcefully, and affirms that "the truth is that due to the ineffectiveness and inefficiency" of the Apmun, by not carrying out the order to seal those illegal works in the year 2000, "we are now in this situation of having to demolish what is illegal, when the other demolition orders of those affected are final".
The Deputy of the Common elaborates on this issue, stating that the "lack of action in its day by the Apmun" caused multiple lawsuits that "could have been avoided". He emphasizes that the Apmun already committed "a serious legal breach of its obligations regarding the surveillance of the seal and its respect" and points out that "at this time there can be no new serious legal breach, the non-execution of the existing final demolition orders".
The letter from the Deputy of the Common states that the agency also excused itself on the costs that these demolitions would have for public coffers, something that it also refutes, pointing out that it would be up to those affected to pay them. In this sense, he points out that those affected "chose" not to comply with the partial demolition orders, "also counting now with the approval of the Apmun, which hides, in order not to execute said replacements of the altered physical reality, in a greater cost of the demolition when that agency does not have to bear any cost for it". Thus, he maintains that these costs "directly affect the offenders" and that these expenses "are exacted before they accrue and are recovered, always, directly and at the expense of the offender of the final demolition order, so there is no possible excuse for the greater cost of the action". "In this way, any decision to the contrary has no protection in current law", concludes the Deputy.
An "unavoidable" obligation
In his resolution, Jerónimo Saavedra reminds the Agency of its "legal duties" and indicates that "the restoration of the legal order disturbed by illegal works is of unavoidable exercise and is a regulated administrative activity", something that would cover the 14 homes in the urbanization and, particularly, the three whose demolition order is already final.
Regarding these three houses, he points out that it is also among the "duties" of the Agency to "proceed with the subsidiary execution of the three final demolition orders". Thus, he indicates that he also has the obligation to "revoke any administrative act that is contrary to the subsidiary execution" of these final orders.
The Agency now has the obligation to respond to the Deputy of the Common within a month, communicating the measures adopted for the "compliance" of its resolution". If it does not do so, it will have to "motivate" the "rejection of the suggestion, warning, recommendation or reminder of legal duties".
