[ad_1]
The plaintiff asked the court to nullify two acts of arbitrary construction drawn up by the defendant’s State Inspectorate for Spatial Planning and Construction (hereinafter, the Construction Inspectorate). The plaintiff has alleged that there is no arbitrary construction such as that mentioned in the contested arbitrary construction acts, that it did not build or organize the road works because they were carried out before the construction permit was granted. The arbitrary construction act was not written for that person, because the actual customer for the construction works, referred to as arbitrary construction in the disputed arbitrary construction acts, was someone else. The Building Inspection took the position that the applicant should have removed the previously laid pavement (before the construction permit was granted), as it was the applicant who had been granted the construction permit for the stretch of highway.
The Palanga District Court dismissed the action, but the district court, which heard the woman’s appeal, confirmed her argument that she did not build the paved street in Palanga specified in the Arbitrary Building Law and annulled the costs of the Arbitrary Building Law. The panel of judges stated that there was no evidence in the file that the plaintiff had carried out arbitrary constructions, that is, (built) sections of concrete pavement specified in the arbitrary construction acts after the preparation of the technical design and issuance of the permit. of construction to the plaintiff. On the contrary, according to the evidence in the file, it was found that the flooring was laid before the applicant’s technical design was drawn up. The binding order to remove the effects of unauthorized construction was not drawn up before the building permit was issued to the applicant, and the building permit was issued to the applicant not for the removal of the effects of unauthorized construction but for the construction of a new building. According to the court, the building license issued to the plaintiff, which provides for the demolition of the existing concrete pavement and the installation of an asphalt concrete pavement in the technical project, does not even oblige the person to build the structure, but only gives the right to build. While the plaintiff was granted the right (but not the obligation) to lay the asphalt pavement and to demolish the existing concrete pavement, he was not obliged to do so and cannot be held responsible for his choice not to exercise that conferred right.
The district court confirmed her arguments that she did not build the paved street in Palanga specified in the Arbitrary Construction Law, annulled the arbitrary construction certificates written to the plaintiff and ordered her to pay the costs of the Construction Inspection of EUR 3,250.
The panel of judges also noted in the decision that an arbitrary construction deed does not necessarily have to be drawn up only for a person who has a building permit, as it can also be drawn up for a person who constructed a building without a building permit. . The fact that, for certain reasons, a mandatory court order cannot be issued for a person who has carried out an arbitrary construction cannot lead to the conclusion that said deed should be drawn up for another person who did not carry out the alleged arbitrary works. , since such a finding would be incompatible with justice, reasonableness and the principles of equity.
The decision of the regional court takes effect from the day of its publication, but within a period of three months an appeal can be made in cassation before the Supreme Court of Lithuania.
[ad_2]
