The Talca Court of Appeals dismissed the constitutional protection petition filed by Corporación Bioecoterra against the Municipality of Talca and its Municipal Works Directorate (DOM). The action sought to halt construction of the new Dreams casino in the capital of the Maule Region. The court also ordered the organization to pay costs, meaning it must pay the litigation expenses.
According to Diario Financiero, the NGO argued that the building permit granted to the casino operator was "illegal and arbitrary". In its view, the casino is being built in areas that overlap or border the Cajón del Río Claro and Estero Piduco Urban Wetland. The company will invest approximately US$ 21 million in the project. The sources do not report the exact date of the ruling or the case number.
A constitutional protection petition is an urgent legal action to safeguard constitutional rights. In this case, Bioecoterra invoked the right to live in an environment free from pollution. It requested that the permit be revoked until the project entered the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA). It also requested an injunction to maintain the status quo, meaning a suspension of construction while the case was being decided.
The Municipality informed the Court that the Maule Environmental Assessment Service (SEA) concluded that the project "does not require mandatory entry into SEIA". It added that the Directorate of Hydraulic Works (DOH) reviewed and approved the hydraulic study.
The court confirmed that a resolution issued by the Maule SEA states that the project does not fall within any of the categories requiring entry into SEIA and will not affect the wetland. It concluded that the permit "falls within the powers" of the Municipality and is not illegal.
The Court added that administrative appeals and challenges alleging illegality seeking the same remedies had already been processed and all had been rejected. It therefore found that the protection petition "does not appear to be the appropriate avenue" for resolving the matter. According to regional outlet G5 Noticias, the ruling also stated that Bioecoterra had not demonstrated harm to third parties.
The same outlet reported that the current Casino de Talca and Bioecoterra have acted together in various cases against the new venue. Pedro Moya, a lawyer for Dreams, argued before the Court that the current casino must close when the new one opens, so every delay benefits its competitor. Moya described those actions as an abusive use of the courts. The sources do not include Bioecoterra's or Casino de Talca's account.
Dreams said in a statement that the construction is at the final acceptance stage. In November, the company will submit its final documentation to the Superintendency of Casinos, which must review it before authorizing the opening. No information was provided on whether Bioecoterra will appeal to the Supreme Court.