The Supreme Court (TS) has requested the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) to submit the documentation and convene the involved parties to reassess the judgement delivered in March 2023, which denied the developer of the San Andrés Sports Port in Tenerife the opportunity to receive compensation for being unable to proceed with the project.
The Supreme Court has authorised this extraordinary appeal to make a determination following a new hearing, regarding the final judgement since late 2023, and to ascertain whether the promoter, the Bricansa company, is eligible for compensation.
Previously, the TSJC dismissed the appeal submitted by the entity that aimed to construct the San Andrés sports port and the Maritime Club, during which the Port Authority sought compensation of 143 million euros for the challenges faced in executing the project.
Bricansa’s owner, José Ana Pérez Labajos, petitioned the courts for compensation due to damages resulting from the occupation of the concession by the current containment dam against the local populace, the amount of which was evaluated by four appraisal firms.
The Civil Procedure Law permits the review of final rulings when pivotal documentation emerges that had not previously been considered, when false evidence exists, or when a case has been won through bribery, coercion, or fraud.
Once the TS has decided to review the ruling, it is now deemed “terminated”, and following a new oral hearing, another judgement will be issued that is not subject to appeal.
The concession dates back to 2002; it was modified two years later ex officio, shifting the facilities from the town’s front to the fishing dock. Although it was claimed that this was not a significant alteration, an environmental impact assessment was requested.
The outcome of this assessment was unfavourable as the Sebadal, designated areas for bird protection and of historical and archaeological significance, were impacted. Consequently, according to the Port Authority, it became impossible to carry out the review of the concession, and the works were never executed.
The TSJC’s 2023 judgement concludes that the concession is currently halted, which does not remedy the situation, and that the presence of a negative report does not invalidate the works of the dike since the initial and current projects are distinct.
Thus, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove illegal occupation or deprivation of the concession upon which the request for compensation was based, which had been dismissed.
The appellant accuses the Port Authority of forwarding the modifications to the environmental agency knowing they would “inevitably” fail to pass the impact assessment, which led to “an anticipated failure.”
Regarding the dike, he criticises the state agency for executing the work via an emergency procedure, claiming it circumvented the need for an environmental report, even though the flooding in San Andrés has been cyclical for decades.
The concessionaire has consistently argued that the procedure was “highly irregular, involving tampered documentation,” which appears to have now legitimised the need to reassess the ruling for these reasons.
The entrepreneur asserts that the State Council was never adequately informed, leading to its inability to make appropriate decisions.
In the forthcoming oral hearing, he will seek compensation since he is unable to proceed with the project approved by the administration.
