The Provincial Court of Madrid has condemned the corporate of Rocío Monasterio to hold out the restore and reform works at its expense to adapt to city legality the unlawful work that it carried out in a ‘loft’ of the presenter Arturo Valls within the Lavapiés neighborhood.
This is acknowledged in a judgment by which the Chamber dismisses the attraction filed by Rocío Monasterio y Asociados SL towards the decision issued, in July 2021 and which is now confirmed.
In the primary occasion judgment, the decide of First Instance quantity 59 of Madrid declared the contractual breach of the consultancy contract signed by Pólvora Films SL with the defendant Rocío Monasterio y Asociados SL and Diseño de Ambientes para el Confort SL
In November 2019, the favored presenter sued the chief of Vox in Madrid for her work as an architect when she transformed a premises on Rodas de Lavapiés avenue into an unlicensed dwelling in 2005.
The obligation to compensate damages was then declared and the defendants have been ordered to pay 3,838.49 euros akin to the quantity of the city planning administrative sanction imposed and 4,205 euros (VAT included) akin to the quantity of demolition prices.
In the identical method, they have been collectively and severally sentenced, to hold out at their very own expense, all restore, reform, alternative, adaptation and adaptation works, even after demolition of no matter was needed, to adapt the results of the disputed work to city legislation. inside a interval of three months.
The problem of Monastery
In the attraction, Monasterio invoked the violation of article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law, contemplating that the norms of the burden of proof had been altered and raised an error within the evidentiary evaluation.
The chief of Vox in Madrid based mostly the problem on the truth that there had been no breach of the signed contract, being conscious that “the works had been carried out with no license and mentioned circumstance having been assumed.”
It acknowledged that “no criticism or declare was made for fifteen years concerning the providers supplied and the change of use from premises to housing was not a basic object of the contract and the plaintiff opposed the demolition of the slab that had been constructed illegally earlier than of the acquisition of the premises as a result of the truth that it misplaced a big a part of the buildability, and the work was obtained in May 2006 with none objection”.
The magistrates state that “the work has been carried out with out having the corresponding municipal permits and with out the change of use from premises to housing”, for which purpose they conclude that there was “a breach of their contractual obligations”.
The Chamber pronounces on the allegation made by the appellant concerning the agreed demolition and imposed sanction doesn’t have its origin in its actions however in “the unlawful works beforehand carried out”.
In this regard, it signifies that based on the paperwork supplied “it can’t be thought of that mentioned demolition order derived from the works carried out previous to the acquisition by the plaintiff of the premises, however somewhat from the works carried out by the appellant and subsequently, should The reasoning made on this regard within the judgment below attraction have to be maintained”.
In a press release, Vox has clarified that the ruling solely condemns the fee of “easy” administrative charges, whereas denying the consumer of ‘Rocío Monasterio y Asociados’ (RMA) the fee of as much as 250,000 euros that he demanded.
Likewise, it states that in mentioned mission RMA carried out consulting work by which it knowledgeable its consumer of “all the pieces he wanted to legalize his work.” “It was the consumer who, after being knowledgeable, made his personal choices,” he factors out.