The Provincial Court of Madrid has overturned the appeal filed by Baraka Capital Group against BBVA and Distrito Castellana Norte for the reversion rights of the expropriated land that gave rise to the Madrid Nuevo Norte urban project and for which claimed compensation of 713 million euros. This is stated in a ruling dated March 31, to which Europa Press had access, rejecting the appeal filed by the group led by the businessman Trinitario Casanova against the decision of the Court of First Instance number 40 of Madrid, of April 2021, which has already dismissed said claim.
Against the resolution, which imposes the procedural costs on Baraka Capital Group, it is possible to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. In their arguments, the magistrates allege that the expropriated did not transmit to the plaintiff “right of reversion specified and fully recognized” either by the expropriating Administration or in a judgment of the contentious procedure that may have been raised for this purpose. Baraka was interested in the lawsuit declaring that BBVA and DCN were contractually obliged to satisfy him the reversion rights derived from the expropriation procedure of the Chamartín and Fuencarral railway facilities, and ordered them to pay him the amount of 713,786,683.94 euros, as the owner who claimed to be of those reversion rights.
The group led by Trinitario Casanova signed an agreement with the former owners of the land in 2018 on their reversion rights that would become effective if they managed to be the owner of the land. Baraka demanded that, as owner of said reversion rightsthe amount of 713,786,683.94 euros to both entities, amount calculated from the “loss suffered by the deprivation of their reversion rights derived from the aforementioned expropriation procedure of the Chamartín and Fuencarral railway facilities, given the impossibility of restitution in natura of the estates”.
It is not legitimate
Now, the magistrates ratify the judgment of instance and point out that the appellant does not have active legitimacy in the appeal since he did not acquire any reversion right from the No Abuse Association, since it did not have any right of reversion that could be transmitted to Baraka. “The appellant cannot claim to obtain recognition of any compensation, ultimately, the reversal and its effects, for the indirect route that seems to have promotedthat is, using the civil jurisdiction in a forced and inappropriate manner by alleging breach of the award contract by the DCN entity despite not having intervened in it as a party, and for which it would only be competent, in view of the legislation and applicable jurisprudence, the contentious-administrative “, collects the ruling.
Rollback procedure finished with final and firm judgment and there is no other pending petition regarding the reversion rights of the expropriated, so no reversion right could be transferred to Baraka. Likewise, it is stated that another claim or request for reversal, once the one presented on October 29, 1999, that is, prior to the entry into force of the Building Management Law, had been rejected, would have to be examined through the modification that this Law introduced of articles 54 and 55 of the LEF, which would imply being subject to the 10-year term that it contemplates for such purposes.