The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has halted the sections of the mobility and road safety regulations in Santa Cruz de Tenerife that grant the City Council the authority to restrict vehicle access for environmental reasons, including the creation of the urban zone.
Consequently, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC), in a ruling issued on April 24, granted the interim measure sought by the Urban Centro El Perenquén Neighborhood Association to suspend the validity of five articles of the mobility and road safety regulations in the municipality of Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Specifically, on March 18, the Neighborhood Association requested the suspension of articles 6.1, 10.1, 20, 24, and 25 of the aforementioned regulations as a precautionary measure, which were published in the Official Gazette of the Province on January 17, 2024.
The TSJC, imposing the procedural costs on the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, deems that “there is a reasonable prospect of success in the claim of the appellant Association,” as per the ruling accessed by EFE.
The suspended provisions granted the City Council of Tenerife’s capital the authority to restrict access for certain vehicles on roads (article 6) and to prohibit parking or entrance to specific areas for environmental or public health reasons, excluding vehicles with environmental labels (article 10).
It also suspends articles 20 and 21, which pertain to prohibiting access, circulation, and parking for certain vehicles in pedestrian priority areas, limiting entry to specific vehicles in pedestrian zones (article 22), and establishing the urban area (article 24).
The appellant Association argues that the mentioned provisions infringe on the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, and omit the mandatory report.
The ruling notes that the likelihood of success in the Association’s claim lies in the City Council’s failure to sufficiently justify the issuance of all mandatory reports during the regulation’s processing.
It further asserts the inadequate content of the regulatory impact analysis report by the council, stating that in its response, “the City Council does not provide direct evidence of their presence and sufficiency.”
Similarly, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands recalls that the same regulations were previously annulled by a ruling on September 23, 2020, for failing to include the mandatory opinion of the information commission.
Lastly, the ruling posits that the public interest is better served by temporarily suspending the contested provisions, outlining that the municipal decision to establish a new urban model intended in the challenged regulations “must adhere to legal standards.”
The Urban Centro El Perenquén Neighborhood Association lodged an administrative appeal against the aforementioned articles, contending that there is a breach of legal certainty due to vague measures such as the City Council’s ability to restrict access to certain roads without specifying reasons and conditions.
It also highlights “a blatant breach of the principle of proportionality” by allowing the potential restriction of parking or entry to specific streets or zones for certain vehicles, based on the environmental permits issued by the General Traffic Department.
Additionally, the Association argues that the extent of the pedestrian priority areas is left undefined, where entry of vehicles by residents, the general public, and merchants is also barred.
Concerning the city centre, which serves as an exclusively pedestrian zone that the City Council of Santa Cruz de Tenerife must define with a supervision and regulation service to ensure adherence to access regulations, the Association also identifies a lack of clarity in outlining its application scope despite it constituting “a clear curtailment of rights” through the exclusion of specific vehicles.
Moreover, he suggests the necessity for a rough estimation of the expenses linked to the city centre.
