The Algarve Free of Oil Platform, PALP, announced today that its court injunction to halt the drilling for oil off Aljezur has been accepted as valid by the Administrative and Fiscal Tribunal of Loulé.
The preliminary injunction was filed by PALP in an attempt to stop the drilling in the sea off the Natural Park of the Southwest Alentejo and Costa Vicentina.
The Loulé court accepted the preliminary injunction that had been filed against the Ministry of the Sea and the Directorate General of Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services (DGRM).
Those mentioned in the injunction now have to respond to the court, in depth and in detail.
PALP and its supporters are delighted, stating on Friday June 16th that “We will continue to fight against the drilling by the Galp-ENI consortium that is planned for the seabed off Aljezur.
PALP also pointed out that each of the oil concession contracts that have been signed are not just for exploration: they are for all the phases of oil exploration and extraction, “including research, prospecting, development and production,”
PALP says the current plan by Galp-ENI, recently postponed to 2018, "must be stopped from the beginning."
“We will also continue to fight for the termination of the contracts in force and for the repeal of Decree-Law no. 109/94, of April 26, in order to prevent the granting of any new concessions,” stated the association.
Comments
We had a meeting to find our progress with AMAL last year, but its true that since then, there hasn't been any further news. Will follow-up next week with AMAL to find out what's happenning..
ASMAA
Why I remain confused
There now are three broadly similar cases to be heard, but each containing some different specific legal poiints to be considered: PALP, Odemira Council and the mayors' group AMAL.
The more the merrier, some say. Others see this as an unneccessary triplication.
Really? Then you haven't been following the case closely enough.
The drilling process WAS ALREADY ON HOLD - pending the outcome of the legal case from Alentejo against the companies, and the legal process will now take its course.
An injunction is normally used to STOP an IMMEDIATE THREAT - if the immediate threat is not there at present, why do so now?
Why I am confused ...
In my opinion, this is a TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY and a stupid action, as they will not be able to react later when it will really be required (probably after the elections) ...
but maybe that is the intention? appear to be proactive rather than being effective?
I'm really confused ...
On which side are they?