The judicial return of a 525-hectare farm to a neighbor forces Iberdrola to dismantle the largest photovoltaic plant in Europe

Is there a new 'Valdecañas case' in Extremadura, now in the renewable energy sector?

Everything indicates that yes, at least for the moment, because

) has just issued a ruling in which the company Ibedrola, owner of the 'Núñez de Balboa' photovoltaic macro-plant in the province, is obliged of Badajoz, to return to a local resident

.

And it is not just another installation but the one with the highest capacity currently in operation in all of Europe (

), above Cestas Park (south of Bordeaux, in France), with 300 MWh.

Iberdrola has announced that it will appeal the ruling and has considered that said facility has all the permits.

Since the beginning of its activity in April 2020, an act attended by the president of the company ,

, the Extremadura facility is capable of supplying

.

To do this, Iberdrola carried out the works on the facilities in a record time of one year on an area of ​​nearly 1,000 hectares (equivalent to 1,000 consecutive football stadiums) that cover the municipal districts of three towns at the same time:

.

The plan is to produce around 832 GWh each year thanks to its

, which have a total weight of 12,100 tons.

The investment was around 290 million euros and employed 1,200 workers for its construction.

For its financing, the group signed an agreement with the European Investment Bank and the Official Credit Institute (ICO), for 145 and 140 million, respectively.

To carry out this project, Iberdrola launched all the administrative procedures to expropriate 525 hectares (slightly more than half of the entire area it needed) from

.

The ruling now requires that they be returned to their owner by declaring the process null and void.

The relationship between the two was not new because before the execution of the expropriation,

had been signed between the parties , which allowed the developer company to act on these lands.

However, Iberdrola wanted to take ownership of the land while renting it, arguing that it was public property, an issue that was endorsed by different public administrations, but not by the Justice: "We must recognize the right to return in natura, that is,

.

For the Extremaduran court, "there is no basis whatsoever to request the expropriation of some farms that months before we have ensured their availability through a lease contract for a period of 25 years. That is to say -adds the sentence-, the request for expropriation lacked of cause or justification to deprive the right of property", for which it is given "

And he adds: "The action (of Iberdrola) is surprising.

Nonsense has no name."

Thus, the ruling states that "at the same time that it informs -through burofax- the date of the beginning of the contract (the same day) and that the construction of the plant is going to begin, it submits a request to summon the acts prior to the Occupation , which determines article 52 of the LExF, with the argument that it has not been able to reach an agreement on the fair value".

.

ABUSE OF RIGHTS

The land owner's lawyer, Dorinda Aventín, considers that the TSJEx has confirmed "the abuse of rights with which Iberdrola has managed its 'Núñez de Balboa' project, acknowledging the violation of my client's property rights."

In addition, she assures that the company has used "the powers of the State" to achieve an illegal expropriation, "demonstrating once again an unfortunate ethic that goes beyond the realm of morality to end up in that of illegality."

For this, she assures that the company has had the fundamental support "of the public administrations that made it possible because

, being the company the beneficiary, for which reason the ruling also disapproves of the work of the different officials who participated in this expropriation" in a clear example that "the big one always believes that they can eat the little one".

In this sense,

: "The Chamber shares the arguments that the plaintiff makes in this regard in its brief of conclusions, answering the desperate attempt of the State Attorney to avoid the nullity of the entire expropriation process, which is blatant due to the absence of justification".

The lawyer has assured that the company has not yet returned the land, despite the fact that the sentence requires the restitution of their property.

Against this sentence, which does not include compensation to the owner for damages, there is

, as confirmed.

This newspaper has tried, so far without success, to obtain the version of this company.

Iberdrola resource

In a statement, Iberdrola has reported that the dispute stems from only one of the three owners of the land on which the facility is located: "50% of this land is owned by two tenants who have not raised a claim at any time any and that they "maintain and respond to the contract signed at the time".

Thus, it considers that the expropriation procedure was carried out by the competent administration, "following the legally established procedures and respecting all existing rights and guarantees" for which the company considers that "there will be no dismantling."

Lastly, he adds that the facility has all "the permits to produce energy and will continue to function" normally.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• Europe

• Estremadura

• supreme court

• France

• Badajoz

• Justice