Presidencia and Consejo Consultivo declare fines based on internet investigation illegal

[Nova]

Yesterday I saw a looky-looky man on the seafront, selling sunglasses, watches, the usual.  Two police officers approached him and said they were going to arrest him for illegal trading.

"Just a minute, chaps!" said the looky-looky man.  "I don't think the government have thought this law out very well.  It's difficult to enforce, evidently, otherwise my friends and I wouldn't have been able to get away with it for so long.  You have to catch us in the act of selling before you can do anything.  And I always thought it was a silly law anyway, preventing us from trading illegally.  We are offering choice to the tourists.  They get the sunglasses they like cheaper than in the shops.  It's stupid that the shops should be the only ones allowed to sell things - who made up that silly law anyway?  In my opinion the law against looky-looky men trading should be overturned and we should be allowed to carry on as we are without worrying about silly police officers stopping us and trying to arrest us".

"Ah, good point", said the police officers.  "As you were then" and as they walked away the other looky-looky men appeared from the shadows and carried on selling their wares.

[Perikles]

It's stupid that the shops should be the only ones allowed to sell things - who made up that silly law anyway? 

The analogy falls down with the difference between harassing people on the seafront and advertising an apartment for a holiday rent. Nobody is irritated by an illegal holiday let, they can ignore it.

Not only that, the shops sell identical sunglasses but have overheads and (presumably) have paid for licences. The holiday accommodation alternatives to illegal lets are not the same, because not everybody wants to spend their time in a hotel or on a touristic complex.

[Nova]

Nobody is irritated by an illegal holiday let, they can ignore it.

I think the neighbours might disagree 

Not only that, the shops sell identical sunglasses but have overheads and (presumably) have paid for licences. The holiday accommodation alternatives to illegal lets are not the same, because not everybody wants to spend their time in a hotel or on a touristic complex.

Yeah, not all my analogies are perfect    The point I was making though was more about the looky-looky man thinking he could get out of it just by disagreeing.  The rest was really just bundled in for effect 

[Perikles]

I think the neighbours might disagree 

Ah yes, I meant just advertising an illegal holiday let. 

[El Profesor]

Yesterday I saw a looky-looky man on the seafront . . . . . . . . . .

Brilliant 

[Janet]

I am limited in what I can say, but can report that the first cases have now been heard. The defences submitted by Alotca lawyers José Escobedo and Santiago Saenz, Tenerife Litigation, were strong and comprehensive in their own right, and were bolstered considerably by the ruling (see below) from Presidencia-Consejo Consultivo: this ruling, which was made for, and in direct response to submissions from, Escobedo and Saenz, confirmed that inspection by internet alone was illegal.

The first judgments are expected in around a week's time, with further judgments by the end of this month, and we can say that we have reason to be hopeful. I would qualify this by stressing that our optimism is reserved for those cases defended by Tenerife Litigation, and where inspection was by internet alone, and of course we must bear in mind that, as in any jurisdiction, the judges are autonomous and independent, and it is impossible to predict with certainty what a ruling will be. I will post as soon as we have the first judgment, which will have precedential value for the others to follow. Fingers crossed. JA

[Janet]

I am pleased – to put it mildly – to confirm that we have received the court decision in the first appeals. They have been successful and the judge has nullified the fines. Those who have lodged money with the Court will now be refunded. As I've said previously, these rulings have precedential value, so we have every reason for convinced optimism for all other appeals of cases fined on the same grounds, and defended by Alotca with appeals submitted by Escobedo and Saenz. I haven't smiled this widely for some time, I can tell you!

[Nova]

 

Let's hope these people do themselves a favour now and stop advertising