The February 9, 2010 was published in this website a Judgement of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, which states that the Technical Architects do not have jurisdiction to issue the license reports for urban development, to exceed of their knowledge. Are there any judgments about it?
Pere-Joan Torrent Riberto. Advocate
The Judgement to which is referred to the Board administrative law of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, dated June 23, 1998, ie about 13 years ago. I do not know if there are other similar statements, but I do not know, although one of the subjects I have discussed in depth has been one of the powers and duties of the technicians, and specifically for architects and technical architects, with special emphasis on case law on the subject. Now, I make some clarifications on this Judgement.
First, the ruling is not concern the validity of a license for having been informed by a technical architect. Judgement is to challenge the appointment by the City of Oviedo of an official technical architect for the job of Chief Technical planning permission. That is, a ruling on a typical subject of civil servants. The ruling of the sentence it is said: "We declare the incompetence of the technical (the technical architect) to carry out that Chief ..." It says in the ruling that the surveyor could not issue a report on the application for a license. Second, the fundamental reason for which the sentence annulled the appointment is because the job referral under the rules of the City Council must be filled by an official of the group A category that does not have a technical architect at that time belonged group B. And in this sense, the sentence seems correct in its ruling. It is true that the legal base 4 of the Judgement is to say that a technical architect urban lacks knowledge to report a planning permission. But this is what we call a "dicta," something said in passing, and on which there is no pronouncement on the failure of the ruling, because the object of the trial was not it. And so as I said I know of similar pronouncements. On the other hand, the reality contradicts the doctrine of the Court. A very high percentage of the planning permission granted in our country, are informed by technical architects, and I know that none has been outlawed for that reason.
First, the ruling is not concern the validity of a license for having been informed by a technical architect. Judgement is to challenge the appointment by the City of Oviedo of an official technical architect for the job of Chief Technical planning permission. That is, a ruling on a typical subject of civil servants. The ruling of the sentence it is said: "We declare the incompetence of the technical (the technical architect) to carry out that Chief ..." It says in the ruling that the surveyor could not issue a report on the application for a license. Second, the fundamental reason for which the sentence annulled the appointment is because the job referral under the rules of the City Council must be filled by an official of the group A category that does not have a technical architect at that time belonged group B. And in this sense, the sentence seems correct in its ruling. It is true that the legal base 4 of the Judgement is to say that a technical architect urban lacks knowledge to report a planning permission. But this is what we call a "dicta," something said in passing, and on which there is no pronouncement on the failure of the ruling, because the object of the trial was not it. And so as I said I know of similar pronouncements. On the other hand, the reality contradicts the doctrine of the Court. A very high percentage of the planning permission granted in our country, are informed by technical architects, and I know that none has been outlawed for that reason.
