He Madrid City Hall by José Luis Martínez-Almeida has taken the first step to modify its mobility ordinance, with the aim of ratifying the maintenance of low-emission zones (ZBE) canceled by the courts. This was confirmed by the delegate for Urban Planning, Environment and Mobility, Borja Carabante, who reported that the Government Council has already approved the prior consultation, which is “the starting flag for the modification of the ordinance which will allow the ratification of low-emission zones in the ordinance on sustainable mobility”.
“There is a period of 15 days to answer these questions that are asked during the prior consultation and from there, as I say, we have already started processing this modification of the ordinance which will allow Madrid not to be left without the ZBEs,” he said. stressed the delegate. In the same spirit, he stressed that these ZBEs are “necessary” in terms of improving air quality since Madrid has achieved the objectives pursued in terms of sustainability.
With the new consultation and subsequent modification of the ordinance, the municipality hopes to maintain these environmental restrictions, essential to guarantee compliance with the objectives of combating pollution in the capital. The mayor of Madrid, José Luis Martinez-Almeida, appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid which annuls the Low emission zonesafter the legal services of Madrid City Council studied the sentence and confirmed that it was possible to consider the appeal to cassation.
Madrid City Hall defends that the city’s current model is “a success” and something “indisputable”. “We are faced with a model which is neither that of Vox nor that of the left of the Madrid City Hallwhich allows, on the one hand, that economically we are the economic engine of Spain and continue to grow, and that from the point of view of environmental sustainability we have never had better data on pollution”, assured Almeida after hearing the judgment against his low-emission zones. To this he added that there is “the best data” on pollution in the city and that a system of alternatives to the use of vehicles. private was generated through the Municipal Transport Company (EMT)
Judicial setback
The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), in a judgment of September 17, 2024, annulled several provisions of the the ordinance on sustainable mobility of 2018 of the Madrid City Council modified in 2021. In particular, the judgment cancels the provisions which delimit the low emissions zone (ZBE) throughout the municipality of Madrid, as well as those established by the Special Low Emission Protection Zones (ZBEDPE) of the “Distrito Centro” and the “Plaza Elíptica”. It is these rules that prevent cars without environmental labels from entering the entire municipality of Madrid and, in particular, what was known as Madrid Center – now renamed Central District.
In a 74-page judgment consulted by OKDIARIO, the court partly accepts the allegations of the Vox municipal group of Madrid City Hall, led by Javier Ortega Smith, in particular those which indicated irregularities in the approval process of the Ordinance. Agree with the appellants regarding “manifests an inadequacy” reports prior to the approval of regulations, emphasizing, following the most recent doctrine of the Supreme Court, the gap in the economic impact report. However, the rest of the articles of the Ordinance remain in force, including articles that generally or by reference mention the ZBE and ZBEDPE that may be implemented in the future.
The magistrates do not call into question the power of the municipal administration to adopt measures to protect health and the environment, in accordance with European and national regulations, nor the need to implement measures to reduce the air pollution, in accordance with Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, they emphasize the insufficiency of the economic impact report, which should have assessed the economic consequences of the measures adopted. This analysis was crucial to achieve an adequate weighting between benefits and costs, and to determine whether it was possible to adopt less restrictive measures with equivalent effects, or whether the measures could be discriminatory for the most economically vulnerable.
