WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance has ruled that several apartment buildings at The View Resort & Marina development in Zakitó were constructed in violation of the approved building permit. However, a contradiction within the judgment itself has created uncertainty over whether the Minister of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning (VVRP), Charles Cooper, must reconsider enforcement action.
The case was brought by nearby residents who challenged the minister's refusal to enforce the building permit. According to the court's reasoning, five of the project's eight apartment buildings were built differently from the approved construction drawings without a permit amendment having been requested at the time.
The court found that Buildings 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 do not exceed the maximum approved height, but nevertheless violate the permit because they were constructed according to revised engineering drawings that were never formally approved.
The government argued that a violation only exists when a developer builds more than what was authorized. The court rejected that interpretation, ruling that constructing a building differently from the approved plans is also a violation, even if the structure is lower or remains within the permitted height.
The court further noted that no applications to amend the permits for those five buildings had been submitted when the minister rejected the enforcement request. As a result, there was no "concrete prospect of legalization," meaning the minister should not have relied on that argument to refuse enforcement.
However, the written judgment contains a significant contradiction.
In its legal reasoning, the judge states that the residents' appeal is well-founded, that the minister's June 19 decision should be partially annulled, and that the minister must issue a new decision regarding the five buildings.
Yet the formal ruling at the end of the judgment declares the appeal unfounded, leaving the minister's decision intact and omitting any order requiring a new decision.
The discrepancy is legally significant because the operative part of a judgment normally determines its legal effect. The court has been asked to clarify and correct what appears to be a drafting error.
The ruling can be appealed within six weeks.