Supreme Court upholds ban on Bávaro International Airport project

Santo Domingo.- The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) has once again ruled against the Bávaro International Airport (AIB), aligning with the Executive Branch and the Dominican Institute of Civil Aviation (IDAC) in declaring the project non-compliant with aeronautical regulations and lacking the necessary operational permits.

As a court of cassation, the Third Chamber of the SCJ rejected an appeal filed by AIB and dismissed two similar actions involving the Abrisa Group, the parent company of the plaintiff.

The court also deemed Decree 270-20, which had approved the AIB and mandated a contract between the Dominican State and the company, to be contrary to legal norms. This decree was previously repealed by President Luis Abinader following an SCJ ruling that declared it illegal.

These decisions uphold previous rulings by the Higher Administrative Court, which rejected AIB’s opposition to its effective ban.

The ruling includes detailed legal reasoning, refuting each argument presented by the appellant. The sentence, authored by court president Manuel A. Read Ortiz and approved by the majority, strengthens the decision by the Higher Administrative Court with additional legal arguments, emphasizing the need to “substitute reasons to support a decision that can be maintained.”

Decree and contract disavowed

In its latest decision, the SCJ implicitly disavows the contract between the Dominican State and AIB, highlighting that the decree issued by former President Danilo Medina on July 21, 2020, did not comply with legal norms. The ruling states that although the decree imposed approval by the Executive Branch, it was executed under anomalous circumstances, involving the direct designation of the beneficiary entity for construction.

Dissenting opinion

Judge Moisés A. Ferrer Landrón of the Third Chamber issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the challenged administrative act had direct and immediate adverse effects on the beneficiary’s interests. He contended that by arbitrarily declaring its own actions harmful, the administration acted incongruously.