The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), in a ruling of September 17, 2024, annulled several provisions of the the sustainable mobility ordinance of 2018 of the Madrid City Council amended in 2021. In particular, the judgment cancels the provisions that delimit the low emission zone (ZBE) throughout the municipality of Madrid, as well as those established by the Low Emission Special Protection Zones (ZBEDPE) of the “Distrito Centro” and the “Plaza Elíptica”. These are the rules that prevent cars without an environmental label from entering the entire municipality of Madrid and, in particular, what was known as Madrid Centre – now renamed the Central District.
In a 74-page ruling consulted by OKDIARIO, the Court partially accepts the allegations of the Vox Municipal Group of the Madrid City Council, led by Javier Ortega Smith, including those that indicated irregularities in the approval process of the Order. Agree with the appellants as to “manifests a deficiency” 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 remaining sections of the Order remain in force, including those sections which, generally or by reference, refer to the ZBE and ZBEDPE which may be implemented in the future.
The magistrates do not 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 air pollution, in accordance with Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, they stress the inadequacy of the economic impact report, which should have assessed the economic consequences of the measures adopted. This analysis was crucial in order to achieve an adequate balance 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 sectors.
The judgment places particular emphasis on how these restrictive measures affect people with lower economic capacitywho may have difficulty acquiring new vehicles that meet environmental requirements. This factor, according to the court, has not been adequately assessed, despite its importance in the context of Law 7/2021 on Climate Change and Energy Transition, which establishes the “principle of just transition”. This principle requires that specific plans and measures be designed that take into account the vulnerable situations of certain groups, who must be supported in the transition process.
Similarly, the judgment states that the measures impact thousands of professional vehicles, directly affecting competition and the market. The Court highlights the importance of having taken into account the situation of groups of companies with fewer resources to renew their vehicles, such as the self-employed, VSEs or SMEs. However, the reports prior to the approval of the order did not address this aspect.
In conclusion, the Court emphasizes that the approval of the order did not meet the criteria established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Supreme Courtwhich require compliance with the principle of proportionality in environmental matters. In other words, it was not properly assessed whether the restrictive measures were necessary and proportionate, because the economic impact on the most vulnerable sectors or on small businesses operating on the market was not taken into account.
This sentence it’s not firm yet and may be appealed by way of appeal before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over contentious and administrative matters. Municipal sources indicate that “the sentence must be analyze municipal legal services.
