Hi Dave,
You have a BG, I believe you have actioned it, so you have your money back. Have you read the post by cargic on Sarco thread about the Jumilla town hall's response and support for SADM?
I have cut & posted it for you and highlighted the key points
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jumilla City Council will seek the annulment of the proceedings of the Supreme Court ruling on Santa Ana del Monte Jumilla Golf, for not being called on it, according to municipal sources. The Supreme Court decided to provisionally suspend the Partial Plan and the Urban Action Plan Santa Ana del Monte Jumilla Golf because the potential shortfall would affect water interest. The first application left Pascual Carrión, a pastor who has a cattle farm in the area.
The Supreme in his car as a precautionary measure agreed to suspend the agreement of the City of Jumilla plenary, adopted at its meeting of 5 December 2006 which was finally adopted the Partial Plan Santa Ana del Monte Jumilla Golf, as well as the agreement of the Local Government Committee adopted at its meeting on 13 December following, which approved the Urban Action Program Implementation Unit Single Partial Plan.
A report by the lawyers for the local authority indicates that "the Administrative Division of the Superior Court of Justice in Murcia, first section, breached the duty of notice under Article 90 of the Law of the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction. The Mayor of Jumilla, socialist Francisco Abellán, states that "has violated the right to effective judicial protection, generating an apparent helplessness, and has violated Article 53 of the Constitution." Abellán announced that "the City will submit to the Supreme Court a motion of annulment of proceedings to declare the proceedings void
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Regarding being niave I think that you should be carefull when making such a crass remark. Perhaps it is helpfull to be aware of all the issues and participants in an event before jumping to conclusions.
The SARC report will put this latest " issue" into perspective.
The only thing for us to be concerned with is the settlement agreement and what is in it.
I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL
Tony R17 18
This message was last edited by TonyMal on 31/12/2009.
This message was last edited by TonyMal on 31/12/2009.
This message was last edited by TonyMal on 31/12/2009.
This message was last edited by TonyMal on 31/12/2009.