The Court understands that there is a “patent insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the Municipal Ordinance
September 17 () –
The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has annulled the Low Emission Zones of the capital, considering, among other issues, that there is a “patent insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the municipal ordinance.
This is stated in a resolution, to which Europa Press had access, in which the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber annuls various provisions of Ordinance 10/2021, of September 13, which modifies the Sustainable Mobility Ordinance, of October 5, 2018, of the Madrid City Council.
The ruling specifically annuls those parts of the Ordinance that define the scope of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) throughout the municipality of Madrid; and those that establish the two Special Protection Low Emission Zones (SEPZ) of “Distrito Centro” and “Plaza Elíptica”.
Thus, the rest of the articles remain in force, including those articles which, in a general sense or by mere reference, refer to the ZBE and ZBEDPE that may be established in the future.
The High Court of Justice of Madrid rejects various allegations of the appellants, the VOX Municipal Group in the Madrid City Council, relating to irregularities in the procedure for approving the Ordinance.
However, it accepts the arguments of the appellant regarding the obvious insufficiency of the reports prior to the approval of the Ordinance. In particular, following the most recent doctrine of the Supreme Court regarding the procedures for the preparation of municipal Ordinances, it considers that there is a “manifest insufficiency” of the economic impact report prior to the approval of the Ordinance.
‘PRINCIPLE OF JUST TRANSITION’
The judges do not question the authority of the municipal administration to adopt the measures it deems necessary to protect health and the environment, in accordance with European and national regulations; nor do they question the need to adopt measures to control atmospheric pollution necessary to ensure, as soon as possible, compliance with the pollution limit values set by Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008.
However, they consider that there is a “clear insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the Ordinance, which required taking into account their economic consequences, in order to be able to carry out “an adequate assessment of the balance of benefits and costs and the possibility of adopting less restrictive measures with an equivalent effect, or which could produce a discriminatory effect for the most economically vulnerable groups.”
The ruling particularly emphasises the fact that the restrictive measures adopted by the Ordinance presumably affect people with less economic means, who are prevented or seriously hampered in their ability to access new vehicles that meet environmental requirements.
The Court points out that no assessment was made of this factor, which is so relevant that Law 7/2021 on Climate Change and Energy Transition itself enshrines the “principle of just transition”, that is, the need to establish generic plans and specific measures that consider the situations of vulnerability of groups to whom support measures must be offered in the transition process.
The ruling also refers to the effect of the measures on thousands of professional vehicles, with a direct impact on competition and market conditions.
He considers it of particular importance that the situation of business groups with less economic capacity to renew their vehicle, such as self-employed workers, micro-enterprises and SMEs, had been taken into account, but he points out that the reports prior to the approval of the Ordinance also make no reference to this issue.
CONSEQUENCES ON THE ECONOMY OF THE MOST VULNERABLE SECTORS
The ruling concludes that the approval of the Ordinance did not comply with the criteria of the CJEU and the Supreme Court, which establish the requirement to respect the principle of proportionality in environmental matters, that is, to “weigh in each case whether the restrictive measures are necessary and proportional.”
“The important consequences for the economy of a large sector of the population, those with the least economic capacity and the most vulnerable to restrictive measures, were not taken into account; nor was the impact on the activity of companies, particularly the smallest ones operating in the market,” he stressed.
This resolution has not yet become final and an appeal may be filed against it before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is competent in matters of a contentious-administrative nature.
Add Comment