Again on the right of reimbursement of electrification expenses in urbanization processes. Comments to the TS Judgments of November 25, 2002 (recourses 154/2001 and 157/2001)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24965/reala.vi296-297.9258Keywords:
Urban legislation, land, unfair enrichment, electric sector, estate property, infrastructures and electrical installations, suppliesAbstract
Summary: 1. INTRODUCTION. 2. THE (DEFINITIVE?) POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE RIGHT OF REFUND. 3. THE CONSEQUENCES THAT THE SUPREME COURT EXTRACTS FROM THE NEW LEGAL REGIME OF THE URBANIZING OBLIGATIONS OF THE LAND OWNERS. 3.1. On the alleged modification of "importance" of urban planning legislation through the LRSV. 3.2. On the alleged distinction between the duties of the owners in the LRSV and the TRLS 76. 3.3. On whether the right of refund is "urban planning". 3.4. The title of jurisdiction invoked by the TS for the elimination of the right of withdrawal. 4. ABOUT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SILENCES THE REGIME CONTAINED IN THE RD. 5. ABOUT THE TREATMENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A PRINCIPLE OF INTERDICTION OF UNFAIR ENRICHMENT.
Downloads
