On 19 July 2010, the Administrative Court nº 1 of Tarragona issued an order in the dispute involving Gérard Fenouillet, Pratdip Town Council and the Urban Development Conservation Entity of Planes del Rei (EUCC).
This decision came more than two years after the judgment of 25 January 2008 concerning EUCC charges linked to water supply and waste collection.
This time, the court did not reconsider the substance of the case. Its purpose was simply to make sure that what had already been decided was actually carried out.
And its conclusion was clear: by July 2010, the 2008 judgment had still not been fully enforced.
2008: the court had already decided the issue
In 2008, the court had annulled the EUCC charges insofar as they included amounts relating to water supply and waste collection.
In other words, those expenses could not be included in that way in the urban development charges claimed by the EUCC.
But two years later, the practical consequences of that decision had still not been fully applied.
In simple terms: the court had already ruled in 2008. In 2010, it had to intervene again to make sure that its decision was actually enforced.
The court orders Gérard Fenouillet to be reimbursed
The judge found that the sums concerned had still not been repaid to Gérard Fenouillet.
The court therefore ordered the EUCC to reimburse the relevant charges, together with legal interest.
After the reimbursement, a new calculation had to be made excluding the amounts relating to:
- water supply;
- waste collection.
The court allowed fifteen days for this to be done.
The decision directly concerns Gérard Fenouillet
This order requires the reimbursement of the sums paid by Gérard Fenouillet in the context of his own legal action.
It does not provide for the automatic reimbursement of all property owners in Planas del Rey.
However, the legal principle applied by the court in relation to water and waste could clearly be relevant to other owners who were in a comparable situation.
In simple terms: the direct effect of this order concerns Gérard Fenouillet, even though the legal principle behind it has a broader significance.
The Town Council and the EUCC must identify those responsible
The court also imposed specific obligations on both Pratdip Town Council and the EUCC.
Within five days, the Town Council had to tell the court which municipal body was responsible for enforcing the judgment and provide the identity of the main municipal officials concerned.
The EUCC, for its part, had to provide the identity of its president, its governing members, its secretary, its treasurer and the people authorised to manage its funds.
The objective was simple: the court wanted to know exactly who was responsible for carrying out its decision.
The court warns of consequences if the decision is still not enforced
The judge did not simply set deadlines.
The order also provides that, if the measures imposed are still not carried out, the case may be referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
This shows that the court regarded enforcement of its decision as a serious matter.
However, the document does not tell us whether such a referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office actually took place later.
What should be remembered from this decision
This order of 19 July 2010 is, in the end, quite straightforward to understand.
In 2008, Gérard Fenouillet had obtained a favourable ruling concerning EUCC charges that included water supply and waste collection.
Two years later, the court found that this ruling had still not been fully implemented.
It therefore ordered:
- the reimbursement to Gérard Fenouillet of the sums concerned;
- payment of legal interest;
- a new calculation of the charges;
- the identification of those responsible for enforcement at the Town Council and the EUCC.
And it warned that, if the decision was still not carried out, the case could be referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In simple terms: the court had already ruled in 2008, but in 2010 it still had to intervene to make sure that its decision was actually enforced.
This order is therefore an important document for understanding the difficulties encountered in Planas del Rey when it came to applying decisions concerning water supply and waste collection.
Jim – La Tribune de Planas
Translated summary of the key passages of the document
On enforcement of the judgment
The court finds that judgment nº 75/2008 of 25 January had not been fully enforced.
On reimbursement
The relevant charges had not been reimbursed to the claimant. After reimbursement, a new calculation had to be made excluding the amounts relating to water supply and waste collection.
On the obligations of the Town Council
Within five days, Pratdip Town Council had to inform the court which body was responsible for enforcing the judgment and provide the identity of the municipal officials concerned.
On the obligations of the EUCC
Within the same period, the EUCC had to provide the identity of its president, its governing members, its secretary, its treasurer and the people authorised to manage its funds.
On the repayment deadline
The relevant sums had to be reimbursed to Gérard Fenouillet within fifteen days, together with the corresponding legal interest.
In the event of non-enforcement
If the measures ordered were not carried out, the court provided that the case could be referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
