Suspension of his license Nammos asked him yesterday Municipality of Mykonos V Ministry of the Environment. This was preceded by the rejection by the Athens Court of Appeal of the petition of the company’s representatives to suspend the decision to demolish. This decision was a “bomb” for the island, since Nammos is one of the most famous companies, which clearly has less urban planning violations (at least from what is known so far) than Nammos. Principotwhich was sealed last week.

The ministry’s request, marked “extremely urgent,” concerns all commercial activities under the Nammos brand in Psaros beach, that is, shops, restaurants, bars, etc. and not only associated with arbitrary designs. The document is addressed to the municipality of Mykonos, which is called “not later than tomorrow, i.e. May 19” (i.e. today) to convene the Quality of Life Committee to proceed with the suspension of all licenses to operate the complex “whether or not they exist.” at the moment of detection of abuses or launch / declare their action in the same area later. The document is addressed not only to the municipality and the South Aegean region, but also to the General Secretariat for Tourism, since, as it turned out in the Principote case, there were “double permits”, i.e. notifications about the work of two different bodies that are not related to each other. each other.

It was preceded yesterday at noon by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal, which ruled dismissing a suspension motion filed on April 28 by three companies and five citizens: two companies are tenants of the property, a third company and citizens are owners. The case was heard on May 12, the decision (No. 64/2023) was issued yesterday. According to the decision, which is at the disposal of “K”, Nammos’ team claimed that the two main buildings recorded in the EPA autopsy report (520 sqm and 40 sqm) had already been built in the past and “fixed”. As they informed the court, “the established work on the implementation of hydromechanical installations, by its nature, does not relate to the construction work of the providing organization and is not unauthorized construction work.” In addition, they argued that no permit was required for these works, but in any case, a minor work permit was issued for the larger of the two buildings (which functions as a shop). This point was particularly important, because according to the new legislation (Article 271a of Law 5037/23), if a mixed unit discovers illegal work in progress, the structure is immediately considered to be demolished. In support of their views, Nammos representatives also presented an AT police report. Mykonos, who accompanied the inspectors during the autopsy, to the Ministry of the Environment, according to which the work carried out did not relate to the construction of the supporting structure of the building.

Nammos also claimed that the inconsistencies between the buildings and the “checking account” statements found by the inspectors were due to the squad not having full access to the two buildings. They also argued that the inspectors were not competent in respect of those parts of the building that were in the seaside area (where real estate service).

For their part, the inspectors argued that the buildings were significantly different from the buildings that had been “cleaned up” a few years earlier, and that the work carried out there was construction work. The court rejected the argument of Nammos representatives that if the buildings were demolished, the business would be irreparably damaged, since the land on which they were built is uneven and is located in a zone of 100 meters from the embankment and therefore cannot be rebuilt. As well as the argument that the company will suffer irreparable financial damage, “since they will be deprived of the vast areas that are beneficial to them, while irreparable moral damage will be done, since their reputation will be damaged.” The court ruled that all buildings on the waterfront and on the beach must be demolished without delay. In addition, “the expansion and alteration of the facades of the two buildings were carried out to expand economic activities, so the suspension of the demolition would lead to the creation of a new factual situation.”

Following this decision, the state is no longer required to wait for the main appeal hearing (for which no judge has been appointed) and can proceed with the demolition of the two buildings. It is logical that Nammos representatives will try to stop both the demolition decision and the sealing decision with new appeals to the court.