The high court dismisses the appeal filed by the Valencia City Council and supports the arguments of the associations SOS Hostelería and Asvomar, who considered that this limitation restricted access and the exercise of economic activity. The decision upholds the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV), which had already declared the requirement null.

The Valencia City Council argued that regional regulations empowered it to establish these distances and that the limitation complied with the principles of necessity and proportionality. However, the Supreme Court concludes that the City Council did not sufficiently justify technically the establishment of a thirty-meter distance between terraces, as aspects such as street types, noise levels, or people's attendance were not analyzed.

The ruling indicates that, while the City Council has the power to regulate these matters, the administration must adequately justify that the measure is necessary and proportional. It considers the report from the municipal legal advisory service insufficient, as it was limited to assessing the legality of the rule without justifying the specific need for the restriction.

SOS Hostelería has welcomed the ruling as "a breath of fresh air for Valencian hospitality," preventing arbitrary restrictions. The entity's president, Rafael Asensio, has stated that restaurateurs collaborate with the administration in organizing public spaces and maintain dialogue with authorities. The appealing associations emphasize that the resolution reinforces the principle of freedom of establishment and recall that market unity legislation prevents administrations from imposing limitations on economic activities without sufficient justification.