On June 4, 2013, the Ajuntament de Pratdip filed a memorandum of opposition before the Contentious-Administrative Court No. 1 of Tarragona, in the framework of appeal 582/2010 brought by the Asociación de Vecinos SOS Planas.
The municipality’s objective was twofold: to obtain the inadmissibility of the appeal or, failing that, the confirmation of the contested judgment.
1) Context
- Proceedings: SOS Planas requested the dissolution of the EUCC Les Planes del Rei and the assumption of the works by the municipality.
- Municipality’s position: responsibility lies with the owners, since the urbanization remains unfinished.
2) Grounds raised
a) Inadmissibility of the appeal
The municipality argues that the appeal provides no reasoned legal criticism of the judgment and merely repeats the initial arguments. It therefore requests its dismissal.
b) Historical background
The memorandum traces the history since 1965:
- 1965: approval of the partial plan, with owners responsible for services until transfer.
- 1968–1987: repeated failed attempts to transfer assets; disappearance of developer Lebasqué.
- 1987: creation of the EUCC Les Planes del Rei.
- 1993: court ruling obliging Lebasqué to transfer certain plots.
- 2001: judicial enforcement, but only partial (≈15% of planned transfers).
- 2005–2008: EUCC assemblies (with participation of the current appellants) approving urbanization projects and agreements with the municipality.
- 2009–2010: ratification of agreements; recognition of the need for reparcelación.
- 2012: approval of the reparcelación project, providing for equitable distribution of costs and regularization of transfers.
c) Impossibility of dissolving the EUCC
- The EUCC has not completed the planned common works.
- A technical report (architect Pérez Pastor) confirms that the infrastructures are obsolete and incomplete.
- The POUM and current legislation still require completion of the works by the owners.
- The transfers already completed cover only about 15% of obligations.
3) Conclusion of the memorandum
- Inadmissibility of the appeal for lack of substantiation.
- Failing that, confirmation of the judgment: maintenance of the EUCC, obligation for owners to complete and finance the urbanization.
- The municipality accuses the appellants of bad faith, as they had participated in assemblies approving the projects and now seek to shift the financial burden.
