Overall looks like most of the claims of the were rejected due...

Overall looks like most of the claims of the were rejected due to lack of foundation in the original case. But the judges did find that they support the need for the original case and this extension of the easement for the proyecto blanco in the maricunga. Here is the best quote from the full judgement IMO.

The purpose of the petition is to ensure the comfortable exploitation of the

mining belongings owned by the plaintiff that make up the

mining project called "Blanco", for whose development it is necessary

the constitution of the easements of transit and occupation requested in the

demand, consequently, with the merit of the evidence rendered, it will be considered

accredited said requirement”.

Said analysis is shared by this Court when estimating, as it does

the judiciary of merit, that the evidence rendered was sufficient to demonstrate the

need to expand the easement requested in order to (1) install

evaporation pools; (ii) salt deposits; (ii) install plants

production; (iv) installation of camps and other facilities

necessary for the proper maintenance and care of the personnel in charge of the

project operations; (v) occupation and transit through the necessary roads

for travel to and from mining camps and other points

of tasks and plants, all of which is necessary for the comfortabl

exploitation of the Mining Concessions; (vi) carry out engineering studies

necessary for the Project; (vii) perform all other tasks necessary to carry out

carry out the exploitation and benefit of the Project.

Also It seems from what I can tell the court did not really comment on the arguments from the treasury about having the right to extract lithium or the metal vs non-metal argument. Seems like they deflected the same way the appeals court did for the simco case before it went to the supreme court. in that same way this court also did site the supreme court case recently finished up last month. Also this court did voice is support for the plans for the project in question, on a legal basis as is represented by the previous court ruling that this current appeal is based on.