In the 1990s, the Municipality of Pratdip still refused to take responsibility for the infrastructures of Planas del Rey (Planes del Rei), despite the judgment of the Falset Court on November 23, 1993. To clarify the situation, the Generalitat de Catalunya issued a legal report on March 5, 1996, clearly confirming the municipal obligations and the rights of property owners.
Context: from 1993 to 1996
- 11/23/1993: the Falset Court imposed the acceptance of the mandatory cessions (roads, networks, green areas).
- Multiple actions by the EUCC (Entitat Urbanística Col·laboradora de Conservació) and the property owners to enforce the decision.
- Persistent municipal inaction delaying the reception and maintenance of infrastructures.
What the March 5, 1996 report says
- The Municipality of Pratdip cannot evade the acceptance of the cessions, confirmed by law and by the courts.
- The role of the EUCC is provisional: it cannot permanently replace the municipality in providing public services.
- A prolonged refusal or municipal inaction may constitute a serious fault.
- Property owners must not be penalized twice (municipal taxes + EUCC fees).
Legal and practical consequences
- The reception of infrastructures must be finalized by the Municipality, with the resulting financial and maintenance obligations.
- Residents are entitled to demand enforcement of court rulings and compliance of services.
- The report provides a solid basis for any administrative or judicial action to enforce these obligations.
Why this still matters today
Almost thirty years later, this report reminds us that the issue is not political but legal: the municipality is obliged to guarantee the minimum services and the maintenance of public facilities in Planas del Rey. Ignoring this framework means ignoring the law and prolonging a situation of unequal treatment for residents.
Conclusion
The legal report of the Generalitat (March 5, 1996) is a key document in the history of Planas del Rey. It confirms the responsibilities of the Municipality of Pratdip and reaffirms the rights of property owners. Its scope remains relevant today: the infrastructures must be received and maintained by the municipality.
