The resolution, notified this Thursday, partially upholds the appeal filed against the municipal agreement approved in May 2024. However, the ruling is not final and can be appealed before the Supreme Court.
The court considers that the City Council relied on regulations that, at the time the measure was adopted, did not contemplate the possibility of suspending the processing of licenses for change of use or the effectiveness of responsible declarations.
According to the ruling, these provisions were subsequently incorporated into regional legislation, which invalidates their application at that time. Therefore, the magistrates conclude that this part of the moratorium violates the legal framework then in force. Furthermore, they recall that such measures, by limiting individual rights, must be applied restrictively.
Despite this, the Chamber does endorse the suspension of building licenses for new hotel or tourist uses. In this case, it understands that the city council adequately justified the measure with data and arguments linked to the protection of the urban environment and access to housing.
This restriction is “necessary and proportionate” to prevent the consolidation of uses contrary to the urban planning under review.
In this way, the ruling maintains part of the municipal strategy to contain the expansion of tourist accommodations, although it requires reviewing the scope of some of its limitations.
