Sustainable Tourism Law

814 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW the developer and buyers alike. It referred to the previous court cases and noted that in those cases the buildings in question looked like hotels and only their use was problematic. In this case, even the physical features of the duplexes clearly indicated that they could not be considered as “vacation apartments”. The court stated that it would not acquiesce with such a serious disregard of the public interest and violation of the lawful plans. It decided that, notwithstanding the plight of the buyers and the harsh consequences they suffered, they could not use the duplexes as their residences, and they must reconstruct them and divide them into smaller vacation units. In another judgment, the court reviewed the series of the previous judgments and applied their principles to an old Plan that allowed the construction of a building on a plot situated 200 meters from the shore line. The judge reiterated the importance of protecting the beach and ancillary area. These were – he said –a unique nature resource which is scarce in such a small country, a situation which should increase the obligation of the authorities to prevent the continuous encroachments by various private uses to the detriment of use by the public at large for recreation and leisure. In that case, the Local Plan allowed the construction of “all types of hotels, apartment hotel, vacation apartments…tourism and vacation services”. So even though the specific local Plan preceded the N.PT . and also the Law that imposed the 300 meters restriction, and therefore they were not binding in this case, they are still to be considered as a source of interpretation of the intentions and purposes that the legislator intended to achieve, namely, that the public should have the main benefit of facilities in the area. Another case in which the above problems were discussed had a peculiar background: an entrepreneur sued both his architect and the Ministry of Tourism for, purportedly, misleading him that he can construct an “apartment hotel” on a certain land that he purchased for that purpose close to the sea front. The plaintiff claimed that even under the general Real Estate Law (Land Law) of 1969, the sea front can only be used to the benefit of the public and that he should not have been promised by the defendants that his plans do comply with the Law. He sued for the losses ensuing out of his forced cancellation of his programs. The court, in examining if his claim was the real and sufficient cause for cancelling the program, referred to the Master Plan for beaches, which at the relevant date allowed building hotels in such areas, namely: the court regarded the use of such land for hotels as a “use for the benefit of the public”!