RIGHTS THAT YOU HAVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HIDES

The 1988 Spanish Coastal Law “ley de costas” established for the first time in history the principle that the adoption of new coastal boundaries “deslindes” has civil consequences, i.e. it affects private property, nullifying it in the event that the property is included in the public domain.

To compensate for the loss of property rights caused in this way, the first transitional provision ”disposición transitoria primera” of the law introduced the possibility that a person stripped of their property is entitled to an administrative concession re the property that used to be theirs. The law establishes a number of categories, from the most privileged to the weakest, giving each of them a concession whose conditions also vary. The most favorable terms relate to the situation of those who had obtained a judgment prior, to the coastal law of 1988, declaring their private property to be an enclave inside the public domain. For these owners the law recognizes their right to a concession to continue the same use of their property for thirty years, extendable for another thirty, without paying any rent. In other cases, on the contrary, even those who have registered their property in the property registry, are only entitled to a right of concession which is very weak and not well defined.

Since then there has been a complex and very significant development, which I will not put on record here so as not to transform this note into a doctrinal article. The important thing is that at the end of this evolution there is practical and effective recognition of the same right to enjoy a concession of thirty years extendable for a further thirty (without obligation to pay royalties) even for those people who did not have a ruling in their favor declaring a private enclave within the public domain.

Our legal system is not like the Anglo-Saxon one, which is based on previous decisions (case law)and judicial precedents. Yet, in this specific field, the fortunate intervention of judges has created a doctrine that exceeds and corrects the original wording of the 1988 coastal law, recognizing the citizens’ rights non-existent in the actual law. This is an extraordinary example of how the system as a whole has self corrected, rejecting the assault on property rights arising from the wording of the actual coastal law.

In conclusion: virtually any owner whose property is put within the public domain (before or after the coastal law) may request the right to be granted a concession, but in this regard we must bear in mind two things:

- First, in a superficial analysis one might think that people who do not request this right at the time, will lose it, since the law states that one should request the concession within one year after the adoption of the coastal boundary line. However, certain legal resources guarantee that this is not true, so that anyone can request the concession at any time.

- Secondly, in the same superficial analysis one might think that the request for an administrative concession implies recognition of the correctness of the coastal boundary demarcation, and that one’s land has ceased to be private. Not so. It is perfectly consistent to challenge the coastline boundary delineation and seek the administrative concession at the same time.

As may be expected, this new situation is revolutionary. If everyone, or nearly everyone, has the right to obtain a concession, this relieves much of the suffering caused by the adoption of the coastal boundary line, and the associated pillaging of property.

But why then does nobody know who has this right? Why does nobody inform the citizens? How is it that this right remains hidden and silenced? Evidently, the Administration is responsible for the concealment, so it appears that in this case the Administration is not properly complying with its constitutional mandate to serve objectively, in the general interest. In part this is because it often uses coastline boundary changes as a tool for constructing public works on the coast (such as the annulment of a coastline boundary in Alcocebre, because the only thing that the Administration wanted was to free land for a promenade.

Another example is Arenales del Sol, where they included in the public domain no less than eight hundred houses, which already have a promenade at the back so that the Administration could demolish them to leave the promenade in the first line nearest the sea.

If neighbours know their rights and make use of them, it is clear that the Administration could not construct promenades on their former property. And another thing: whilst requesting a concession is an individual decision of each neighbour, it is important that many do it together, the more the merrier, as the government may expropriate the concession itself, but the expropriation would not turn out to be so cheap for three hundred concessions as thirty or three.

Be that as it may, the fact is that the Administration is silent, and that most citizens do not realize they are being had, if you will forgive the expression. In a state of law, it is outrageous that people should have to scratch like chickens to find out the existence of their own rights, but this is the strange situation in which we live in Spain. And in this way, these important rights can waste away for lack of use.

As in other cases, what we have to do is utilize them. If anyone is interested in learning more, please send an email expressing your doubts.

INICIO