The ministry’s request, marked “extremely urgent”, concerns all commercial activities under the Nammos sign on Psarou beach, i.e. shops, restaurants, bars, etc.
Suspension of his license Nammos asked him yesterday Municipality of Mykonos THE Minister of the Environment. It was preceded by the Athens Court of Appeal’s rejection of the company’s representatives’ request to stay the demolition decision. The decision is a ‘bombshell’ for the island, as Nammos is one of the best-known companies and had significantly fewer planning violations (at least from what is known so far ) that the Principalitywhich was sealed last week.
The ministry’s request, described as “extremely urgent”, concerns all commercial activities under the Nammos brand in Psaros Beach, i.e. shops, restaurants, bars, etc. and not just those related to arbitrary constructions. The document is addressed to the Municipality of Mykonos, which is called “no later than tomorrow, that is, May 19” (that is, today) to convene the quality committee of life to proceed with the suspension of all licenses to operate the complex “whether they exist or not”. at the time of detection of the abuses or subsequently launch/announce their operation in the same area”. The document is addressed not only to the municipality and the South Aegean region, but also to the General Secretariat of Tourism, since it turned out that in the case of Principote there were “double permits”, that is, transaction notices to two different organizations that are not related to each other.
It was preceded, yesterday, at noon, by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens which rendered a decision rejecting the request for suspension presented on April 28 by three companies and five citizens: the two companies are the tenants of the building, the third company and the citizens are the owners. The case was heard on May 12 and the decision (no. 64/2023) was issued yesterday. According to the decision, which is available to “K”, the group of representatives of Nammos argued that the two main buildings identified by the autopsy report of the environmental inspectors (520 m² and 40 m²) were already built in the past and “tidy”. As they pointed out to the court, “the works established for the implementation of hydraulic and mechanical installations do not by their nature relate to the construction works of a supporting organization and do not constitute arbitrary construction works” . Furthermore, they argued that no permit was required for this work, but that in any event a permit for small-scale works had been issued for the larger of the two buildings (which functions as a store). This point was particularly important since, according to the new legislation (article 271a of law 5037/23), if illegal work in progress is detected by the mixed level, then the work is immediately deemed demolished. To back up their claims, Nammos representatives also submitted an AT police report. of Mykonos – which accompanied the autopsy of the inspectors – to the Ministry of the Environment, according to which the work in progress did not concern the construction of a supporting structure of a building.
Nammos also argued that discrepancies found by inspectors between buildings and “settlement” statements were due to the team not having full access to both buildings. They also argued that the inspectors had no jurisdiction over the parts of the building that were in the waterfront area (where the real estate service).
For their part, the inspectors argued that the buildings showed significant differences with the buildings that had been “tidied up” a few years ago and that the work carried out there was construction. The court rejected the argument of representatives of Nammos that if the buildings are demolished, the company will suffer irreparable damage, since the land on which they were built is not flat and is located in the area of 100 meters from the seafront and therefore cannot be rebuilt. As well as the argument that the company will suffer irreparable financial harm, “since it will be deprived of vast areas that are beneficial to it, while this will cause irreparable moral damage, since its reputation will be tarnished”. The court ruled that all structures on the foreshore and beach must be demolished without delay. Moreover, “the extension and alterations to the facades of the two buildings were made for the expansion of commercial activity and therefore the suspension of the execution of the demolition would lead to the creation of a new factual situation”.
After this decision, the State is no longer obliged to wait for the hearing of the main appeal (for which no judge has been appointed) and can proceed with the demolition of the two buildings. Logically, the representatives of Nammos will try to stop both the demolition decision and the sealing decision with new appeals before the Court.