The Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has rejected an appeal filed by the Stratvs winery, which sought to suspend the order to close the restaurant. This measure was ordered by the Yaiza City Council in September 2013, three months before the Justice also ordered the sealing of the rest of the winery.
The property appealed this municipal decision and, while the procedure is being resolved, requested precautionary measures to allow them to reopen the restaurant. However, the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 6 of Las Palmas rejected their request in October 2013, and now the TSJC has done the same.
In its appeal against the City Council's decision, the company owning Stratvs appealed to the "substantial economic-financial damages" and the "consequent destruction of twelve jobs." However, the Court rejects this argument forcefully.
"Regarding the economic damages," the ruling states, "it should be remembered that they are only attributable to those who voluntarily placed themselves in a situation of illegality, carrying out a classified activity without prior obtaining the corresponding licenses, with the risk and danger that this entails for the general interests that materialize, especially in the neighbors adjacent to the activity, as well as in the users of the same, without prior control that the facilities meet the safety and health requirements that the administration must control."
In this regard, the ruling that La Voz has now accessed, and which is dated March 29, recalls that the closure of the restaurant was ordered "for lacking the mandatory classified activity license for catering," and emphasizes that "this circumstance alone would justify the denial of the request for suspension" of the closure order.
In addition to rejecting the request for precautionary measures, the TSJC orders the property to pay the costs and emphasizes that no appeal is possible against this ruling.
Two parallel procedures
The closure of the restaurant was ordered by the mayor of Yaiza, Gladys Acuña, when the criminal procedure for the construction of this winery was already underway and she had even been summoned as a defendant.
During the mayor's statement, Judge Silvia Muñoz asked her if she was going to take measures with the winery, considering that at least through this procedure, she had already become aware of the situation of illegality. Her answer was affirmative, but almost 20 days later, the Court had to address the City Council, through a provision, to state what measures had been adopted, "knowing the lack of licenses."
Finally, on September 9, 2013, the City Council ordered the closure, but only of the restaurant, alleging that it still maintained the file open on the rest of the facilities. A month and a half later, the technicians who were investigating that file proposed the total closure of the winery, which was not carried out.
On December 20, 2013, the judge herself was the one who ended up ordering the total closure of the winery, in a very harsh order in which she reproached the public administrations involved (Yaiza City Council, Lanzarote Cabildo and Government of the Canary Islands) for their "alarming inactivity" with Stratvs. She thus attended to the request of one of the parties in this case, a member of the Negrín family, who has appeared as injured, understanding that part of the facilities were built on land of his property.
Pending the appeal against the closure of the winery
Although the closure of the restaurant decreed by the City Council has been endorsed by the TSJC, the appeal filed by Stratvs against the total closure of the winery ordered by the Justice is also pending. In this case, a hearing will be held this Wednesday, April 30, in the Provincial Court of Las Palmas to resolve it.
After listening to the parties, it is expected that this same Wednesday a resolution will be issued by the Court, determining whether to maintain the closure or allow its reopening.
In any case, the restaurant must remain closed. In addition, even if the Justice decided not to maintain the precautionary measures on the rest of the winery, the municipal file that proposed the total closure of the facility would also remain pending resolution.
In this sense, as the judge pointed out in her order ordering the closure, it should be remembered that the competence to proceed with the closure of an activity without a license or with illegal permits does not correspond to the Justice, but to the public administration. However, in this case, and given the "inactivity" of the City Council, these precautionary measures were adopted to prevent the continued commission of alleged crimes, for example, with the alleged contamination in the treatment of wastewater.
