Management's responsibility for denial irregular building permits

 licencia obra indemnizacion

Irregular denial of a building permit may entitle the applicant to compensation for abnormal functioning of the administration

 Consult your case now

The Contentious-Administrative Court Superior of Justice of Madrid, in Case 10 July 2019 (Res. No. 512/2019), It has modified the compensation for damages resulting from the liability to which condemned the Court of Administrative Litigation No. 29 Madrid to the Madrid City Council, after the abnormal functioning of their urban bodies, because it found unjustified delay in granting a building permit.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

The business entity PROMATOL, S.L. bought the 16 March 2007 unbuilt property by 1.878.162,82 euros, on which constituted a mortgage in favor of BANK OF MADRID, amounting 2.127.000 principal euros.

The 16 March 2007, commercial entity that requested the Madrid City Council work license for construction of a building site in Zaragoza Pilar Street, 59, Madrid. It was reported favorably by the municipal technical services in date 20 November 2007.

The building project according to urban planning elicited a strong social rejection, a movement of strong local opposition as it emerged that was pending license to build the plot purchased by PROMATOL, S.L. This neighborhood movement was supported by other political groups in the City, creating a serious problem for the ruling party, so this invited PROMATOL, S.L. to resolve the conflict, proposing two options: 1) Set back the plot to maintain a reasonable alignment of the road, rendering useless the building that was designed under plans approved planning; and 2) accept a barter that could not finally be carried out by not being able PROMATOL S.L.. to lift the mortgage that weighed on that parcel and under the swap should go to the City.

They decided to start negotiations to solve the problem, and, after several meetings maintained, it was agreed that the proposal that most interested parties was the possible exchange of the affected plot, as collected in the Act he raised as a result of the hearing held on 6 August 2008, as well as in Note Internal Service of the General Director of Urban Management to the Manager of the Municipal Board of Salamanca, Date 3 September 2008.

However, This solution was accepted by PROMATOL it not finally came to materialize, thwarting the swap, because PROMATOL could not lift the mortgage that weighed on the plot situated in Pilar Calle de Zaragoza No. 59. He could not lift the mortgage lien weighing on the site of his property, because the mortgagee entity refused to do so because the sun was offered as a replacement for the encumbered was valued by the public administration in an amount less than the mortgage liability taxing the land owned by the appellant.

For his part, Councilman Chairman of the Board of the Municipal City of Madrid, by neighborhood complaints, She refused to sign the license and to grant Certification positive act, requested by the commercial entity the 23 May 2008, issued on 12 September 2011, and notified the 4 January 2012. All, despite having recognized that the license application was consistent with the planning regulations, counting on a favorable report from the municipal technical services.

The business entity filed before the City Council with a administrative claim for damages against the 22 April 2009 (la cantidad solicitada fue ampliada en escritos posteriores presentados el 9 February and 26 April 2011), for damages caused by the delay in resolving its application for licensing to build a new building on the street Pilar de Zaragoza No. 59 c / v to Picon Street No. 27 Madrid. It was resolved by the City, dismissing the same, As he presented the administrative appeal 22 March 2012. This appeal was also dismissed, by decree of the delegation of the Government Department of Finance and Public Administration of the City of Madrid, Date 30 August 2012.

The 2 January 2013 was presented a second complaint Administrative liability, misestimating inadmissible for such claim by the refusal to grant the building permit. It introduced the motion for reconsideration 10 June 2013, and it was also rejected such alleged, by administrative silence of the Delegation of the Government Department of Finance and Public Administration of the City of Madrid.

In the exhaustion of administrative remedies, PROMATOL, S.L., filed administrative appeal before the Courts of Madrid Dispute. Per turn, corresponded resolve the Contentious Administrative Court No. 29 Madrid.

Primera Instancia

The Contentious Administrative Court No. 29 Madrid gave judgment on 30 June 2017, relapse cars Ordinary Procedure nº 105/2012.

the contentious administrative-it was partially upheld interpuesto por PROMATOL, S.L., and He condemned the Madrid City Council to pay the applicant the amount of 1.573.139,35 €, by way of damages for the inability to build a new building on the street pillar of Zaragoza No. 59 c / v to Picon Street No. 27 Madrid, plus legal interest of the money from the date of the administrative claim (22 April 2009). All this without imposing costs against any party.

Regarding compensation for damages caused by the City commercial entity, reasoned that, if planning permission was not granted by the local pressure, because it was not signed by the District Manager, neither the applicant dared to perform the work he covered projected in the positive silence, to the financial difficulties of the project stoppage, the mortgage was executed and the applicant lost the plot and foiled the building project.

However, by the court was appreciated by abnormal functioning of public services the City urbanistically when planning the alignment of the road Pilar de Zaragoza and keep members planning plans approved. This operation is abnormal what has obliged to compensate the damages to the commercial entity in accordance with Article 139.1 of the then current Law 30/1992.

To the been recognized by the court that there was obligation to compensate, in the same sentence determined the damages and lost profits of such compensation. After legal assessment of the concepts by asking for damages amounting emerging, the court determined that the total compensation for damage emerging, amounted to 816,872.50 €, by the following concepts: costs of the building project, loss of solar, interest due on the loan for the purchase, legal costs and expenses of the mortgage claim, costs of purchasing solar, incorporation expenses and mortgage novation, and mortgage installments paid between 16/03/2007 and 16/12/2008.

Por lo que respecta al lost profits or benefit that failed to receive from the sale of homes, the court held that the court expert had set a reasonable amount and well documented, very close to ZURICH, so he set at 756,266.85 €, in the event that the license has been granted and had begun selling homes in 2008.

The total compensation was fixed at € 1,573,139.35.

Both the business entity, as the City of Madrid, It was filed appeal.

PROMATOL, S.L., He requested the revocation of the sentence, and that the compensatory amount is replaced by the amount of 2,573,188.90 €, the alternative, € 2,241,810.95 by the, plus legal interest from the date the administrative complaint was made. For his part, the City of Madrid was also dissatisfied with the judgment handed down in the instance, and requested revocation and declaration that he had acted in accordance with law. Last, by ZURICH, the confirmation of the sentence was asked regarding his lack of passive legitimation.

high Court of Justice, appeal

The 10 July 2019, Contentious Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice gave judgment Madrid after the filing of appeal, with no resolution 512/2019, dismissing it in the case of PROMATOL, S.L., and esteeming in the case of the Madrid City Council, partially revoking the first instance judgment issued, establishing a value of less damages, condemning the City to pay the corporation, not only a lower amount, but also legal interest.

He left the base, after examining the judgment appealed, the allegations and claims made, that the viability of the action of liability of the Administration was based on compliance with requirements established by the article 139 Law 30/92, since the individuals were entitled to be indemnified by the Public Administrations corresponding, when suffered a injury to any of its assets and rights: a) The actual reality of the damage or injury, economically assessable and individualized in relation to a person or group of persons; b) That in damage or injury suffered by the claimant is a consequence of the normal or abnormal functioning of public services;c) Absence of force majeure; and d) The claimant does not have a legal duty to support fully the damage caused by their own behavior.

He noted in this regard, the STS 14 February 2011 (rec. nº 3964/2006), that remember "The existence of actual harm is accurate and effective whose production must be imputable act or omission by a public authority. Among the actions of the Administration and the damage must be a causal link, constituyendo presupuesto de la responsabilidad patrimonial de la Administración ese enlace de causa a efecto entre el funcionamiento del servicio y la lesión, sin que se pueda generalizar dicha responsabilidad más allá de este principio de causalidad.”

Mientras el juzgado consideró que existió un funcionamiento anormal de los servicios públicos del Ayuntamiento de Madrid por la planificación urbanística de la alineación de la calle Pilar de Zaragoza y en el mantenimiento en los planos integrantes del planeamiento aprobado, la Sala no ha estado de acuerdo, pues ha considerado que el juzgado partió de una premisa que ni ha sido planteada por PROMATOL, incurriendo así en un supuesto de incongruencia ultra petitum.

Pero para la Sala, la cuestión controvertida importante ha consistido en determinar si los daños y perjuicios reclamados tenían su encaje en el supuesto indemnizatorio the artículo 35.d) del TRLS de 2008, for, en el mismo se disponía queDará lugar a indemnización la anulación de los títulos administrativos habilitantes de obras y actividades, así como la demora injustificada en su otorgamiento y su denegación improcedente. En ningún caso habrá lugar a indemnización si existe dolo, culpa o negligencia graves imputables al perjudicado”.

In this sense, ha destacado el article 42.1 of the then current Law 30/1992, que expresaba que “se obliga a la Administración a dictar una resolución expresa en todos los procedimientos y a notificarla, lo que debe tener lugar antes del transcurso del plazo legalmente establecido para ello. Si se produce una inactividad o actividad tardía (funcionamiento anormal) de la Administración causando determinados daños y perjuicios al particular, como regla general surgirá el derecho del administrado a verse resarcido.”

However, el simple transcurso del plazo legalmente establecido para la resolución y notificación administrativa no era suficiente para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad administrativa. Solo cuando la demora haya sidoinjustificada” (art. 35.d TRLS 2008). In this case, el retraso en la concesión de la licencia, para la Sala, no se podía justificar por la protesta vecinal, pues “la Administración actúa siempre con sometimiento a la ley y al Derecho” (art. 103.1 EC). Therefore, se apreció por la sala el funcionamiento anormal de los servicios públicos del Ayuntamiento de Madrid.

Con relación a la alternativa de barter, aceptada por ambas partes, la Sala dedujo, tras el análisis de las alegaciones de ambas partes, the next: 1) la existencia de una demora tanto en el otorgamiento expreso de la licencia urbanística solicitada como del debido reconocimiento de su otorgamiento por silencio administrativo positivo durante más de tres años (solicitado por la actora emisión de certificado de acto presunto en fecha 23 August 2008, fue expedido por el Ayuntamiento en fecha 12 September 2011); 2) that the delay was attributable to an abnormal functioning of urban bodies of the City of Madrid; and 3) That such delay was unjustified.

The Board also considered whether there could be an impact on the administrative silence rule on the enforceability of liability for delay.

Brought up the article 43.1 Law 30/92, He is expressing that, in proceedings at the request of the applicant, "The expiration of the deadline without having notified express resolution, legitima al interesado o interesados que hubieran deducido la solicitud para entenderla estimada por silencio administrativo, excepto en los supuestos en los que una norma con rango de ley por razones imperiosas de interés general o una norma de Derecho comunitario establezcan lo contrario.”

In this particular case, la Sala ha tenido en cuenta la incertidumbre que rodea la aplicación de la regla del silencio administrativo positivo en el ámbito urbanístico, dado que existe una constante legal que imposibilita la adquisición de licencias “contra legem” (STS 7 diciembre de 2011, rec. nº 227/2009). Fue el Ayuntamiento de Madrid el que incumplió su obligación de resolver y notificar en el plazo legal, y también su obligación de expedir el certificado de acto presunto solicitado en el plazo legal contemplado (15 days), so that, aunque la entidad mercantil pudiera, a través de este incumplimiento, iniciar las obras por silencio administrativo, el Ayuntamiento no puede quedar exonerado de la responsabilidad patrimonial. All this, no solo ha cuestionado el efecto positivo de dicho silencio, sino también colocó en situación de incertidumbre a la sociedad mercantil.

Therefore, la Sala determinó en la sentencia que sí hubo un funcionamiento anormal de los órganos urbanísticos del Ayuntamiento de Madrid en este caso planteado, pues para la misma, “se ha constatado que hubo un retraso injustificado en el otorgamiento de la licencia urbanística solicitada por la mercantil recurrente, tan solo imputable al Ayuntamiento de Madrid, y que la reclamante no tiene el deber jurídico de soportar el daño cabalmente causado por aquella conducta”.

On the other hand, en cuanto a la valoración económica the damages and lost profits of la compensation for damages, la Sala partió de la base de que cuando se emitió el certificado acreditativo del silencio administrativo (12 September 2011), el solar en cuestión se encontraba en situación de ejecución hipotecaria, proceso que culminó finalmente con la adjudicación del solar a la entidad bancaria por el 50 % de la deuda pendiente de pago.

En relación con la determinación y cuantificación del damages, la Sala estimó procedentes “todos aquellos gastos realizados por la mercantil para la realización de la promoción del solar para el cual se solicitaba la licencia de obra, que resultaron inútiles en atención a la adjudicación del solar producida como consecuencia del procedimiento de ejecución hipotecaria, así como aquellos otros que no se hubieren realizado de haber dispuesto la licencia en la fecha prevista. (…) A la hora de determinar el importe del daño emergente no se tendrá en cuenta el valor del solar sino los derivados de la compra y de la constitución de la hipoteca, así como las cuotas de hipoteca abonadas y la deuda generada por el impago causado.” So good, la Sala excluyó algunas partidas, con sus correspondientes importes, estableciendo la cuantía indemnizatoria por este concepto en 1.464.303,66€.

Por lo que respecta al lost profits, para la Sala no puede ser indemnizable, for se debió tener en cuenta también “la realidad del mercado inmobiliario de las fechas próximas a la conclusión de las obras de edificación y las eventuales incidencias de dicho mercado en la real situación económica y financiera de la mercantil recurrente.”

Trajo a colación doctrina jurisprudencial, whereby “la prueba de las ganancias dejadas de obtener ha de ser rigurosa sin que puedan admitirse aquellas que sean dudosas y contingentes, lo que excluye los merossueños de ganancias” (STS 15 October 1986), ya que no cabe que a través del concepto de lucro cesante y del daño emergente se produzca un enriquecimiento injusto (STS 21 December 2012, rec. nº 5521/2010).”

Last, en cuanto a los legal interests, la Sala consideró que en materia de responsabilidad patrimonial regía el principio de reparación integral del daño, and that doctrina jurisprudencial consideraba que “las cuantías indemnizatorias por tal concepto declaradas (no constituidas) in sentence, dada su naturaleza de deuda-valor, deben ser actualizadas al momento de su pago mediante el reconocimiento del devengo del interés legal desde la fecha de su reclamación en la vía administrativa.”

No hizo expresa condena en costas.

Conclusion

Existe funcionamiento anormal de la Administración Pública, and, therefore, responsabilidad patrimonial, cuando se constata el retraso injustificado en resolver solicitudes de actos reglados, no teniendo el solicitante el deber jurídico de soportar el daño causado. Also, de la indemnización por daños y perjuicios que se deriva de esta responsabilidad, no cabe que se produzca, en concepto de “daño emergente” y “lucro cesante”, unjust enrichment.

 Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required