The appeals of 57 hotel units in Ayia Napa and Paralimni, which challenged the fees imposed on them by the Department of Water Development for old debts, ended in a vacuum.
According to the facts, as recorded in the decision of the Administrative Court, and as reported in today's publication by the newspaper "Phileleftheros", in 2009 after an agreement between the sewerage councils of Paralimni and Ayia Napa and the Department of Water Development, the latter took over Liability for charges and receipts for the amount of water produced by the sewage treatment plants of the sewage systems of the amount of water provided to consumers since the beginning of the operation of the units, ie in 2002.
Consumers were informed with notifications of the sewerage councils of Paralimni and Ayia Napa dated 30/4/2009. In September 2009, the WDD sent out warnings about arrears. Several months later, the affected hotels appealed to the WDD, requesting explanations for the fees imposed, noting that the companies in question had never contracted with the Water Development Department.
The WDD did not give any response to these letters and as a result, in 2013, appeals were filed. On the one hand, they protested against the non-response to their letters and on the other hand, they requested a decision of the Court declaring the decision to impose a fee for the consumption of recycled water invalid.
With regard to the substantive treatment sought by the hotel units in question, namely the cancellation of the charges imposed, the Court held that the actions were brought out of time, ie after the expiry of the 75 days provided for in the Constitution, and therefore did not even examined the reasons given for the cancellation of the fees.
With regard to the non-response to the letters sent by the hotels, the Court pointed out that “the obligation of the defendants in the application (s.s. of the WDD) was to settle the imposition and collection of those fees that the sewerage councils Paralimni and Ayia Napa never imposed. That was the action required by law and not their deletion. " It was judged that there was no omission of due action and the result was the rejection of the appeals.
Source: Liberal