The Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura has annulled the acquisition of land in Usagre (Badajoz) that houses 1.4 million photovoltaic panels operated by Iberdrola. Judge Outlines State Attorney’s “Misconduct”
Is there a new ‘Valdecas case’ in Extremadura, now in the renewable energy sector? everything indicates that yes, at least for the moment, because Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura (TSJEx.)) has issued a decision to force the Ibedrola Company, owner of the ‘Nez de Balboa’ photovoltaic macro-plant in the province of Badajoz, to return it to a resident of the city. More than 525 hectares were acquired for its construction., And this is not just another facility but one with the largest capacity currently in operation in the whole of Europe (500 MW), above Sestas Park (south of Bordeaux in France), with 300 MW. Iberdrola has announced that it will appeal the sentence and believes that the said establishment has all the permits.
Since the start of its activity in April 2020, an act attended by the Chairman of the company ignacio galnoExtreme convenience is able to supply Solar power to 250,000 homes, To do this, Iberdrola worked on facilities in an area of 1,000 hectares (equivalent to 1,000 football stadiums in a row) in a record time of one year, covering the municipal districts of three locations at the same time: Usagre, Hinojosa del Valle and Welcome, Thanks to this it is planned to produce about 832 GWh every year 1,43,000 photovoltaic panels installed on 288,000 foundations, whose total weight is 12,100 tonnes. The investment was approximately 290 million euros and 1,200 workers were employed for its construction. To finance it, the group signed an agreement with the European Investment Bank and the Official Credit Institution (ICO) for ₹145 and ₹140 million, respectively.
To complete this project, Iberdrola launched all administrative procedures to occupy 525 hectares (more than half of its surface area). Santos Lazaro Arias, the owner of the said land, The ruling now requires that the process be declared null and void and return them to their owner. The relationship between the two was not new as it had been between the parties before the execution of the confiscation. a 25 year leaseWhich allows the promoter company to take action on these lands.
However, Iberdrola wanted to take ownership of the land when renting it out, arguing that it was public property, an issue supported by various public administrations, but not by justice: “We need to return naturally. must recognize the right, that is, For the restoration of fields free of photovoltaic plant with all facilities, which is the intention of the plaintiff”., For the Extremaduran court, “there is no ground for requesting the ownership of certain farms that months ago we have ensured their availability by way of lease for a period of 25 years. ie – adds the sentence -, request for ownership of the property lack of reason or justification for the deprivation of the right”, for which it is given “Non-existence of cause of confiscation which entails cancellation of entire confiscation file”. And he says: “The performance (of Iberdrola) is amazing. The bullshit has no name”.
Thus, the sentence relates that “at the same time it notifies that—by Bureaufax—the date of commencement of the contract (on the same day) and that the construction of the plant is about to begin, it submits a request to call business.” acts before it, which stipulates Article 52 of the LEXF with the argument that it is not capable of reaching an agreement on fair value”. The amount unilaterally increased to 3,338,314.92 Euro. was determined on,
infringement of rights
Landowner’s lawyer, Dorinda Aventon, believes that TSJEx has confirmed that “Iberdrola managed its ‘Nez de Balboa’ project with abuse of rights, acknowledging the infringement of my client’s property rights.” doing.” Furthermore, he assures that the company has used “powers of the state” to achieve an illegal takeover, “once again demonstrating an unfortunate morality that goes beyond the realm of morality and ends in illegality.” It happens.” In doing so, he assured that the company had “the fundamental backing of the public administration that made this possible because” It’s not Iberdrola that seizes the kingdombeing the beneficiary company, for which this punishment also denies the work of the various executives who took part in this takeover” in a clear example that “the larger always believed they could eat the smaller”.
In what sense, The sentence makes a clear reference to the state attorney’s misconduct: “The Chamber shares the arguments that the plaintiff makes in this regard in a nutshell of its findings, responding to the State’s Attorney’s desperate attempt to avoid the emptiness of the entire forfeiture process, which is a matter of justification.” The reason for the absence is clear.”
The lawyer has assured that the company has not yet returned the land, despite the fact that the conviction requires restoration of their assets. Against this judgment, which does not include compensation to the owner for damages, it is Appeal before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, called Iberdrola . will be filed by, as confirmed. This newsletter has so far tried to get this company’s version, without success.
In a statement, Iberdrola explained that the dispute stems from only one of the three owners of the land on which the facility is located: “50% of this land is owned by two tenants who have not claimed at any time. ” any and that they “retain and respond to the contract signed at that time”.
Thus, it assumes that the ownership process was carried out by the competent administration “following legally established procedures and respecting all existing rights and guarantees”, for which the company believes that “There will be no solution.” In the end, he said the facility has “all” permits to produce energy and continues to function “as normal”.
according to the norms of