The Administrative Court annulled a decision of the Department of Urban Planning and Housing based on a decision of the Council of Ministers on June 15, 2023 that revoked a decision of January 18, 2023 of the Council of Ministers of the previous Government and decided to revoke a granted urban planning permit for the development, known as “SUNCITY", in Sotira.
In its decision, the Administrative Court refers to a violation of the Constitution in relation to the composition of the Council of Ministers when the contested decision was taken. It also refers to lack of proper research both from the Department of the Environment and the Minister of the Interior.
"As clearly follows from the provisions of Article 46 of the Constitution, every decision of the Council of Ministers is taken by an absolute majority without providing that this absolute majority is allowed to arise from the members present and not from all the members", refers to the Court's decision.
Therefore, it is added, "since Article 46 of the Constitution itself does not provide that the decisions of the Council of Ministers are taken by an absolute majority of the members present, it is concluded that the Constitution itself does not tolerate the Council of Ministers meeting and taking decisions with any other composition than the full one."
"Therefore, the decisions taken at the disputed meeting of the Council of Ministers, which was not meeting in full composition since four of its members were absent, were taken in violation of the Constitution, which is equivalent to a violation of essential form and as such cannot be ignored," is noted.
In relation to the lack of proper research, he refers to a letter sent by the Minister of the Interior to the Department of the Environment on May 25, in which he listed suggestions submitted by the development company and requested that "I have your views as soon as possible, regarding the Applicant's comments regarding the Special Ecological Assessment of Special Protection Area of Agia Thekla-Liopetri, as well as the position of the Environmental Authority on the two scenarios (demolition or not of illegal developments), which are examined in the Technical Report it submitted, so that there is a complete picture of the facts of the case before the relevant Proposal of the Minister of the Interior is forwarded to the Council of Ministers."
It also cites the Department of Environment's response of June 12, 2023, which states the history of the case in relation to the Department of Environment and states, among other things, that "Considering that the project has been implemented in a different manner than that defined by the Environmental Opinion and the Planning Permit, without securing the views of the Department of Environment in advance and without a prior environmental impact assessment, but also without applying the relevant condition of the Special Cumulative Impact Report mentioned above, the position of the Department of Environment is that the illegal constructions should be removed and then any new request for the construction of new buildings should be examined in accordance with the applicable environmental and other legislation."
"As is apparent from the above, the Department of Environment, contrary to what was requested of it by the Minister of Interior, namely its views on the very specific suggestions of the applicant company, limited itself to a review of what preceded it and to the position that the illegal constructions should be removed and then the issue should be examined on the basis of a request for the construction of new buildings", is noted in the decision.
This position of the Department of Environment, is added, "he raised the issue completely outside the context in which it was at the specific time, namely the application for retrospective legalization of work that had already been carried out."
It is, the Administrative Court continues in its decision, "In this context, the opinions of the Department of Environment were requested and it is on the suggestions of the applicant company that the Department of Environment should take a position, either positively or negatively, so that its application for a permit by derogation can result in a decision."
"The failure of the Department of the Environment to do this, as well as the acceptance of this specific response by the Minister of the Interior – contrary to what he himself had requested from the Department of the Environment – demonstrates a lack of proper investigation", refers.
"For the above reasons, I conclude that Case No. 65/2024 succeeds as similarly Case No. 188/2024 succeeds since it was issued as a result of the rejection of the application that is the subject of 65/2024. The contested decisions are annulled", is mentioned in the decision.
Source: KYPE
Discussion about this post