HE Supreme Court of Justice of Madrid It was decided to reopen the case investigating whether the compensation given by the City Council to the owners of the land where the stadium is located is correct or not. Civitas MetropolitanHome of Atlético de Madrid. In the decision dated November 6, which was first available to El Periódico de España of the Prensa Ibérica group, the judges annulled the previous decision of the Instructional Court No. 26 and decided to conduct the trial retroactively. The judge may continue the analysis of the arguments presented.

It did this after determining that “all the aforementioned principles, principles, rules and declarations of the constitutional jurisprudence and the Supreme Court are unlawful”, as explained in the Second Section decision of the TSJM Disputed Administrative Chamber. “The procedure was unacceptable,” the organization concluded, after the decision was based on “an unexpected and surprising contribution.”

The legal fight against the Madrid City Council by those who own part of the land where the Civitas Metropolitano stadium is located today was opened in 2019, two years after the official arrival of Madrid. Atlético de Madridbut in principle the case died out at the beginning of last year when the Court of Instruction No. 26 dismissed the case.

Compensation is paid by La Peineta, not the Metropolitano

The thesis defended by the plaintiffs for the land to be returned to them or at least re-evaluated is that they received compensation for expropriation on the grounds that the land will be used for construction. public stadium, CombThe facility, which was opened in 1994 and operated until 2005, was closed that year in order to carry out the necessary studies for candidacy for the 2012 Olympic Games.

However, when this project failed, the stadium and the adjacent land were handed over to the Colchonero team to build its new stadium on the basis of La Peineta and even develop a new sports city for Atlético de Madrid.

According to the plaintiffs, Envisaged eight-year deadline not met so that the expropriated lands could pass into private hands, and compensation therefore had to be recalculated and foreseeably expanded. Otherwise, they argue, at least the possibility of returning their property should be considered.

The owners base their claims on the fact that although public operation of the stadium began in 1994, this was done without formalizing expropriation. city ​​of madrid He began to take the first steps to organize the Olympic Games. Thus, with the first agreement signed between the club and the council in December 2008, the eight years specified by law would not have passed before the transfer could be made to a private organization.

Google searches are useless

However, the High Court of Justice of Madrid does not go into the essence of the issue in the decision referenced by this newspaper, instead it is of the opinion that the reasons for rejecting the claim are not sufficiently supported by legal grounds.

To justify that the calculation of days exceeded the legally established period, the Court of Instruction No. 26 of Madrid relied on “the transcription of the findings through the search engine”. Google and findings such as the “link” on the website of the Madrid Athletics Federation and the “paragraph on that page regarding the stadium opening and activities” will not be triggering for TSJM. It is essential that the demands of the expropriated are rejected.

Although there are property owners who want the new appraisal right to be recognized first and then discuss the final amount, others, as reported by ‘El Confidencial’ In 2019, they preferred to directly demand 8 million euros instead of the 2 million euro compensation they received at that time.