Justice has beaten the State in the case of the Pazo de Meirás and now says that the Franco family can extract the furniture from the interior. It also orders the State to compensate the heirs of the dictator for damages.
The third section of the Provincial Court of A Coruña has revoked the order of the Court of First Instance number 1 that ordered to deposit in favor of the State all the furniture and accessory elements of the pazo de Meirás. The court has upheld the appeal filed by the Franco family and has annulled the precautionary measure and has also condemned the Administration to compensate them for the damages that the now annulled order would have caused them.
The magistrates explain that, at this procedural moment, the discussion about who owns the furniture does not proceed, since the Administration, it says, did not claim it in its initial claim. The Provincial Court, however, leaves open the possibility that the State Administration can sue, in another lawsuit of course, the ownership of chairs, tables, carpets and works of art that it considers property of National Heritage now assigned to the use of the chief of the State.
So things all come to mind both of us statues of Mestre Mateo that are inside the pazo.
In the car, the court recalls that only these two images are cataloged as Asset of Cultural Interest but it indicates that the Galician Heritage Law “does not establish any loss of civil property” on the part of the owners of those assets due to the fact that they are cataloged.
The judges emphasize that the lawsuit does not claim “an asset of cultural interest as a group consisting of both movable and immovable property” and indicate that “neither does such an administrative declaration exist, nor is it recognized in the judgment.”
“This argument cannot be taken into consideration in this proceeding. A sentence is being carried out, so you can only enter what the operative part of the court decision says. These arguments may be used, where appropriate, as the basis for a claim claiming the furniture ”, indicates the court.
In the resolution, against which there is no recourse, the magistrates explain that “a property right over a cadastral property was only demanded, and thus it was estimated,” for which they consider “evident” that the concept of “property by incorporation” could never be extended “to tables, chairs, dishes, rugs or pictures ”.
The judges recall that, in accordance with article 703.1.2 of the Civil Procedure Law, whoever is obliged to surrender possession of a property has the right to remove the furniture not included in the execution of the sentence. “If the purpose of the State was to avoid that architectural elements that should be considered part of the property could be detached, nothing prevented it from requesting that the judicial commission be present when the furniture was removed,” says the court, adding that another The option would have been to promote an execution incident in advance “in order to determine which elements should be considered inseparable, such as the discussion about a stone cross, a granary or stone elements of the garden, or an altarpiece or other objects, but not to establish that it cannot remove any furniture “.
The judges affirm that, despite the deposit of the furniture requested by the State within the process of provisional execution of the sentence, “at no time does the Administration announce a future lawsuit postulating the ownership of that furniture.” In this sense, the order clarifies that in order to adopt a precautionary measure, a legal litigation must be alive (or state that the claim will be presented in a peremptory period), which does not happen in this case. The magistrates emphasize that in the first instance ruling “it is not said that the furniture is property of the State, nor was that issue ever touched upon in the entire litigation.”
–
