Madrid, May 11 (EFE) .- The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of Ecologists in Action against the cancellation of Madrid Central, an area restricted to traffic in the center of the city, which means that all the fines imposed fall to the lack of normative support.
The First Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber has issued an order in which it agrees the inadmissibility of processing the appeal filed by Ecologists in Action Madrid against the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, of July 27, 2020, which partially estimated the appeal of the Popular Group in the Madrid City Council in relation to Madrid Central.
One of the consequences of this decision is that after the appeal has been dismissed, the judgment issued by the TSJM becomes final, so that all the fines imposed will decline due to the lack of regulatory support, according to sources from the Supreme Court.
The project of the previous Consistory of Manuela Carmena to limit traffic in the center of the capital came into force on November 30, 2018 and was immediately appealed by the PP and the Community of Madrid, who even asked the Madrid Justice to paralyze precautionary the Sustainable Mobility Ordinance, which covered Central Madrid.
The TSJM annulled part of the Madrid Central ordinance due to “formal defects” given that “the essential process of public information and the essential financial report prior to the approval of the ordinance were not complied with.”
And now the Supreme Court demolishes the attempt of Ecologists to preserve Central Madrid by stating that “no matter how much the appellant may coincide in the social significance” of this matter, “none of the cases of appeal invoked” concur “since the provision regulatory “lacks, for the purposes of the formation of jurisprudence, of sufficient importance”.
In this regard, the magistrates explain that Ecologists “is limited to alleging that in the process the nullity of a general provision has been declared and that it is of great importance for the residents of Madrid and the rest of the users of public roads.”
However, the Supreme Court recovers the arguments of the TSJM by recalling that “the jurisprudential doctrine on the incorporation of the financial report into the procedure for preparing all regulatory norms is constant.
“Up to the point – he adds – that its omission in the process of preparation and approval has been considered as a determining defect of the nullity of the general or regulatory provision.”