On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Justice unanimously rejected a proposal submitted by Cencosud against the ruling he ordered the owner of Jumbo, Disco, Easy and other chains, the Restoration of the Centenary Pavilionas set out in one of the concession clauses of the contract entered into by the Chilean company with the state in 1994 to commercially exploit the property located in the Buenos Aires district of Palermo.

Following the money laundering violation, the The nation state has sued the multinational Chilean, who manages the property where, in addition to a Jumbo and an Easy, there is a shopping tour with other locals.

The venue, called the “Great Central Pavilion of the International Railway and Land Transport Exhibition” is located on Bullrich Avenue, Cerviño Street and the platforms of the Miter Railroad.

According to the ruling, Section V of the National Chamber of Appeal in Federal Administrative Litigation – confirming the first instance ruling – accepted the complaint and ordered that Cencosud “proceed with the restoration of the Grand Central Pavilion until a degree of completion similar to that originally possessedincluding the maintenance of its previous facades, ornaments and related precautions, with expenses “.

In this context, the Court held that the decision of the Chamber, which confirmed the first instance ruling which ordered compliance with the guidelines of the contract, “is in line with the text of Article 41 of the national Constitution, which recognizes the ‘essential importance for the conservation of the nation’s historical, artistic and cultural heritage ”.

the estate “It is the only one of the 35 buildings erected for the International Centennial Exhibition in 1910 that still stands.and which in 2010 was declared a national historic monument, recognizing its exceptional historical and architectural value “, recalled the supreme court.

“Despite this, for decades it has been in a serious and increasingly deteriorated condition,” he added.

Furthermore, the need to restore and adapt the Pavilion was noted by the State staff who, for this reason, introduced in the “seventeenth clause of the concession contract signed on November 30, 1994, the obligation to carry out the works by the concessionaire recycling until it is reached a degree of completion similar to that originally possessed “.

The Court noted that the reports accounted for the high level of deterioration and risk of the protected complex, both outside and inside.

He also pointed out that “journalistic investigations” have shown that the Pavilion “no longer has its upper part, that its walls have cracks from which bushes emerge, that the glass is broken, the plaster and ceilings have fallen, the columns have holes. , and its internal structure in iron and wooden floors almost completely absent “.

Source: Telam

NEITHER