The government of Arona (with five councillors from the PP, five from CC, and two from Vox, leaving them one short of an absolute majority: 13) published this year’s budget in the Official Gazette of the Province (BOP) on Monday. However, according to the socialist opposition, it has not yet been definitively approved, as it was rejected last Thursday by the 13 opposition councillors (eight from PSOE, four from Más por Arona, and one from NC). The BOP considers the local accounts approved, as well as those of the Municipal Company ADESA and the boards of Culture, Sports, Tourism, and Social Services. The government led by Fátima Lemes (PP) presents the Financial Intervention report from 27 June, which states it was definitively approved on the 20th of that month.
According to Canarias Ahora, the opposition, at least the PSOE, is seriously considering reporting this situation, claiming there are no precedents in Canarian administrations, as it considers it may be a case of prevarication. The accounts were initially approved on 13 May.
When asked by this newspaper, Fátima Lemes stated at noon that “the budget was definitively approved at the plenary session held on 20 June 2025. This is acknowledged by the Financial Intervention report dated 27 June, which clarifies that: ”The validity of the administrative act of definitive budget approval occurs once adopted by the plenary body, and it remains valid unless annulled or declared null“ (art. 39.1 of Law 39/2015). The top manager acknowledges that ”subsequently, it was detected that an allegation was not resolved due to a procedural error (and) the solution proposed was to revert the case to rectify this defect. However, the plenary voted against reverting, so the agreement approved on the 20th remains valid and effective, as it has not been annulled nor declared null by any judicial body. Consequently, the publication in the Official Gazette of the Province strictly follows the procedure set out in Article 169 of the Revised Text of the Law Governing Local Finances, which establishes that the budget will come into effect, in the corresponding fiscal year, once published in the prescribed manner.”
Also, when questioned about the municipal legal advisers on whom they based their decision, she insists that, “considering the report’s opinions on not reverting the actions due to the negative plenary agreement, and its validity of the definitive approval agreement, the procedure must continue according to its procedural path. For this purpose, after definitive approval, it must be summed up by chapters in the BOP of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, as agreed by the plenary in its session on 20 June 2025.”
Regarding whether the local government fears any judicial setback, Lemes denies it and assures that “any interested party is legitimised to lodge, within the legal deadline, a potential contentious-administrative appeal. However, the Financial Intervention report itself dismisses the detected defect as having sufficient entity to nullify the budget, since no infringement leading to outright nullity has occurred (art. 47 of Law 39/2015).” She also maintains that “there has been no indefensible situation nor breach of an essential formal requirement that prevents achieving the act’s purpose (art. 48.2). If it were voidable, it could be validated by the municipality itself (art. 52). Therefore, neither the content nor the form of the approval act is legally invalid, and the BOP publication is the regulated step that fully enforces the agreement externally. As for a supposed criminal route, the action has strictly adhered to administrative legality. There is no wilful conduct nor indications of a criminal offence, as is also confirmed by the defect’s correctable nature and the transparency of the procedure followed.”
The opposition’s reading is different and, initially, it is likely that they will present this appeal or opt for the criminal route.
