The owner of the stadium bar demands the offices of the Government and the Governor; No 6 promises to resist the ‘exorbitant’

The owner of the Murga Bar Association is demanding the Government, the Governor’s Office and the Attorney General on claims that the certificate used to finish their lease at the Victoria Stadium is unconstitutional.

In a motion presented in the Supreme Court, the lawyers who act for Allan Asquez affirm that both section 66 of the Law of Owners and Tenants and the Certificate are constitutionally defective and incompatible with the Constitution.

It highlights the lack of any provision for legal reparation in current legislation, which says it influences the fundamental rights of Asquez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz8DPGSBT38

In January, Sir Ben Bathurst used his authority under Section 66 of the Law of Owners and Tenants. This allows you to end the rentals when the property that is being rebuilt is considered necessary for the public interest for the economic development of Gibraltar.

The certificate meant that the demolition of the Victoria stadium could proceed, after the objections of the owner of the Murga bar that also has three kiosks and storage areas in the stadium complex.

Clause 66 specifies that this applies to government ownership.

However, the motion presented in the Supreme Court challenges the termination of long -standing rights under the appearance of reurbing in public interest.

Allan Aquez is demanding the Government, responsible for the policy and decisions in the motion, the Governor’s Office, which issues the certificate under its constitutional authority, and the Attorney General, the main legal officer under the Constitution.

Lawyers Gómez and CO act for Mr. Asquez establishes their case as follows:

– Section 66 of the Law of Owners and Tenants lacks procedural safeguards, compensation guarantees and the judicial supervision required by section 6 of the Constitution of Gibraltar. This, he says, is the supreme law in Gibraltar that provides protections of property rights.

– The European Human Rights Convention establishes any interference with property rights, much includes fair procedures, adequate compensation and judicial supervision.

– The Law of Owners and Tenants establishes the right to renew the leases, termination and compensation procedures and an extension of tenure.

The motion states that section 66 seeks to cancel these protections without appropriate safeguards or compensation.

In addition, Mr. Aquez states that the Victoria stadium is already in possession of the GFA, and not of the government. (However, this is disputed by the Government that says it only assigned GFA’s development rights for the stadium).

The claim also indicates that the governor is not subject to any of the safeguards of impartiality and procedure inherent to judicial procedures and does not operate within a structured and adversary process where the evidence can be rigorously proven.

Establishes that the role of the government as owner and the de facto The decision maker through the governor also creates conflicts of inherent interests.

Regarding the reason to issue the certificate, which is in the “public interest for the economic development of Gibraltar”, the claim states that this is vague and subjective and does not define clear criteria.

Asquez is looking for the next relief of the Court:

– Declare that section 66 of the Owner’s Law and Tennant is inconsistent and incompatible with section 6 of the Constitution and, therefore, is null.

– Declare that the certificate is null, void and without effect

– To grant any greater relief considered by the Court as fair and equitable, including, among others, the costs of Asquez.

GBC has contacted the government for its reaction to this motion. He says that his position remains exactly as indicated above and will strongly resist any application made by Mr. Asquez who seeks to advance in his exorbitant statements that would be contrary to the common interests of the Gibraltar taxpayer.

Respondents have requested an extension to present their response and evidence. This has been granted until February 25.