What does it mean that in certain wind farms in Galicia the projects move forward through judicial decisions, as suspensions are rejected and authorizations upheld?
The latest resolutions of the Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) regarding the Bustelo and Coto Muíño wind park projects show that the answer depends on the procedure and on the issues examined.
In both scenarios, authorizations continue, but the judicial decisions have different scope and do not end in the same way with respect to environmental discrepancies.
The resolution concerning Bustelo dismisses the appeal against its authorizations, while in Coto Muíño, however, the court has rejected the request for a provisional suspension, so the authorizations remain in force while the merits of the case are still pending.
This difference is fundamental to understand what the magistrates have decided and what questions remain open. What judicial arguments explain both decisions and what implications do they have for developers and environmental organizations? In this text we will unpack it.
Two new wind farms on Galician soil
The Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) has backed the construction of two wind farms in the A Coruña municipalities of Carballo, Coristanco, Vimianzo and Zas, in A Costa da Morte (A Coruña).
The contentious-administrative chamber of the TSXG has dismissed the appeal filed by an environmental association, Petón do Lobo, and has authorized the construction of the Bustelo wind farm, in Coristanto and Carballo.
Likewise, it has denied the provisional suspension, requested by the same entity, of the prior and construction authorizations, as well as the declaration of public utility of the Coto Muíño wind park, located in the municipalities of Vimianzo and Zas in Galicia.
In the first case, the prior and construction authorizations of the project were challenged, whose legality was recognized by the Supreme Court in March.
Now the TSXG applies the doctrine, according to which the fact that nearby parks share infrastructures, as in Campelo, Bustelo and Monte Toural, does not automatically determine the existence of a single project for environmental assessment purposes.
Thus, it emphasizes that “there is no fragmentation of projects, without any indication that fraudulent purposes may have been pursued, there being no such fragmentation when there is no division of a unitary project and when the project has not been subjected to ordinary environmental assessment.”
To this, it adds that “what would sharpen the synergistic effects and aggravate the environmental impact would be precisely the duplication of infrastructures.”
Regarding the Coto do Muíño project, the chamber notes that they do not allow “to conclude with the necessary clarity the existence of harms of difficult repair associated with the maintenance of the authorizations.”
“They cannot be considered disproven, at this procedural stage and before an examination on the merits of the matter, the specialized reports issued in the environmental procedure,” and therefore the provisional suspension is not granted, leaving the resolution of the matter for the merits.
Indicatively, “no concrete data are provided that undermine the technical specialized judgment favorable in the environmental assessment process, in which the effects and possible environmental impacts are specifically evaluated, and the resolution of the controversy over environmental, landscape and cultural heritage impacts should be referred to the merits of the case.”
