The first decision exempting the state from paying compensation to hoteliers who closed their businesses during the Covid-19 outbreak affects the sector and total 106 bar, restaurant and hotel owners gave up submitted their demands to the high court. To date, since the first sentence was made public on October 31, Controversial-Administrative Department The Supreme Court rejected a total of 48 requests He was ordered to pay an average of 4,000 euros in costs per case.
The first decision serving the application of general criteria, almost a thousand sources The case still awaiting resolution, Alhambra Palace Hotel, In Granada, officialsThey demanded compensation of 417 thousand euros For economic damage resulting from the closure.
The decision, whose spokesman was Carlos Lesmes, the resigned president of the General Council of the Judiciary, confirms that the unconstitutionality of states of alarm does not serve to confirm the allegations. restrictions were necessary and there it was It is a legal duty to endure them. Hoteliers used the Government’s lack of foresight and delay in taking measures against coronavirus as a basis for their claims, but this claim was not accepted.
315 million demand
Among the 48 cases already rejected are: Globalia Group, According to the report, compensation of approximately 315 million euros was requested. European Press. In every case, as in the first one, the Supreme Court stated that liability for inheritance requires unlawfulness, and in this case, the damage suffered by the hoteliers was not unlawful because Measures taken by the State Administration to deal with coronavirus “necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the situation.”
The Supreme Court also reminded that although the royal decrees on the state of alarm were declared partially unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, it was the Guarantee Court itself that confirmed that this unconstitutionality alone was not a sufficient right to bring claims. responsibility inherited from the father.
In addition to the thousands of claims still on the Supreme Court’s table, the Cabinet must decide up to 9,000 more claims that will also be rejected; but predictably, existing case law will now prevent the majority of appeals from being presented. to justice.