Voice won the pulse José Luis Martinez-Almeida with the capital’s low-emission zone. The celebration of Santiago Abascal celebrated the decision of the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) which ended the “Madrid Central of Carmena and Almeida” and assured that “FREEDOM prevails over coercion and fines.” “Years of work are bearing fruit. Only Vox directly opposed the Madrid Central of Carmena and Almeida. Freedom can return to Madrid,” Rocío Monasterio stressed on her social networks, while the party’s regional account insisted that “justice has finally been served.”
This Tuesday, the TSJM cancelled the Low emission zones of the capital considering, among other things, that there is a “manifest insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the municipal ordinance. This is stated in a resolution in which the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber cancels various precepts of ordinance 10/2021of September 13, which modifies the Ordinance on Sustainable Mobility, of October 5, 2018 of the Madrid City Council.
The judgment specifically annuls the parts of the order that define the scope of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) throughout the municipality of Madrid; and those that establish the two special low-emission protection zones (ZBEDPE) of the “Central District” and the “Plaza Elíptica”. In this way, it leaves in place all the other articles, including those articles that, in general or by simple reference, refer to the ZBE and the ZBEDPE that could be created in the future.
He Superior Court of Justice of Madrid rejects various allegations of the appellants, the Vox Municipal Group at Madrid City Hallrelating to irregularities in the procedure for approving the ordinance. However, it maintains the appellant’s arguments concerning the manifest inadequacy of the reports prior to the approval of the ordinance. In particular, following the most recent doctrine of the Supreme Court concerning the procedures for drafting municipal ordinances, it considers that there is a “manifest inadequacy” of the economic impact report prior to the approval of the ordinance.
Just Transition Principle
The judges do not question the power of the municipal administration to adopt the measures it considers necessary to protect health and the environment, in accordance with European and national regulations; nor do they question the need to adopt the measures to combat atmospheric pollution necessary to ensure, as soon as possible, compliance with the pollution limit values set by Directive 2008/50/EC of European Parliament and CouncilMay 21, 2008.
They consider, however, that there is a “manifest inadequacy of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the ordinance, which required taking into consideration their economic consequences, in order to proceed “to an adequate weighting of the balance of benefits and costs and the possibility of adopting less restrictive measures having an equivalent effect, or which may produce a discriminatory effect on the most economically vulnerable groups.
The judgment particularly affects the fact that the restrictive measures adopted by the Prescription They are likely to affect people with lower economic capacity, who are prevented or seriously hampered in their ability to access new vehicles that meet environmental requirements.
The Chamber emphasizes that no assessment has been made on this factor, so relevant that Law 7/2021 of Climate change and energy transition, enshrines the “principle of just transition”, that is, the need to establish generic plans and concrete measures that take into account the situations of vulnerability of the groups to whom support measures must be offered in the transition process.
Likewise, the judgment refers to the impact of the measures on thousands of professional vehicles, with a direct impact on competition and market conditions. considers it particularly important that the situation of groups of companies with less economic capacity has been taken into account for the renewal of the vehicle, such as the self-employed, microenterprises or SMEs, but points out that the reports prior to the approval of the order do not refer to this issue either.
