European Property Rights and Wrongs - Diana Wallis MEP

vouring measures such as freezing EU Regional Development funding streams to
Spain if sufficient progress were not made on tackling the urbanisations problem.
Political reality has meant that funding streams have not been affected, although
some groups continue to lobby for this approach. The Andalucían government at
the time rejected the findings and criticised the report as biased. The Opinion note
to the report prepared by the Committee on Legal Affairs takes a narrow view of
the legal basis for the EU to intervene noting that “…the Spanish authorities act
in pursuance of the Spanish Constitution and laws enacted and pursuant to the
relevant provision of the Constitution. The fact that some of the people affected
by the measures in question were Union citizens who had exercised on of the
freedoms granted by the Treaty has no bearing on the matter. The proper means
of seeking redress is through the Spanish courts and ultimately, once all domestic
remedies have been exhausted, the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.” 15
The lobbying group AUAN (Abusos Urbanisticos Almanzora NO!) brought a
petition in 2011 claiming breach of fundamental rights of the Treaty and Charter
of the EU as they were not able to enjoy free movement of persons and capital
due to the effect of local planning laws affecting the value of their property. The
value of the Petitions Committee process is that they are able to hear evidence
from those directly affected by the issues who can speak in person to the MEPs,
on this occasion they were able to hear evidence from Helen Prior whose home
was demolished in 2008 by the Andalucian regional government and has become
a prominent spokesperson on the issues in Andalucia. The Petitions Committee
can make recommendations to the Commission and Committees responsible,
where appropriate, as a result of information gathered and evidence heard.
The European Court of Justice recently ruled on one aspect of the LUV laws;
that of competition law in public procurement. They found that there was no
infringement of competition regulations in the cases presented. Activists were
aiming to take a direct hit at the laws themselves, however following the opinion
of the Advocate General in September 2010, the competency of the Court was
restricted to the competition points 16 .
15 (A6-0082/2009) p31
16 Opinion of the advocate general Jääskinen delivered on 16 September 2010
(C-306/08)
22
European Property Wrongs