The Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Canary Islands High Court of Justice (TSJC) has issued an order instructing the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council to cease work on the so-called “Cycle Network”, that is, the cycle lane.
This decision follows an appeal filed by the Urban Centro “El perenquén” neighbourhood association, which last April demanded the dismantling of the cycle lane and urban area, arguing that there was no legal basis for its development after the TJSC previously annulled the Mobility and Road Safety Ordinance, which regulates the low emission zone.
In the order, released this Monday and accessed by EFE, it states that on 12th June the capital city’s council submitted the relevant allegations.
Now the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the TSJC refers to the aforementioned order of April 2024, which agreed to the provisional suspension of several precepts of the aforementioned Ordinance and which, it adds, was not appealed by the City Council.
This is of the utmost significance, notes the TSJC, because it constitutes a presumption “iuris et de iure” that the party that does not appeal a judicial resolution “is deemed to be in agreement with it.”
The City Council, therefore, agreed not to request a bond and that there was no risk of irreversible damage at a much earlier procedural stage, so now that there is a ruling “it does not seem possible to defend a substantial change in circumstances to adopt another procedural stance.”
The tribunal adds that the only element provided in this regard is a contract for the execution of the “project for the execution of a personal mobility network in the centre of Santa Cruz de Tenerife with parking spaces and electric charging points”, signed on 12th September 2024.
Well, given that the contract is made on a date when the provisional suspension order was in force and awaiting a ruling, the City Council cannot claim as a possible detriment stemming from provisional execution, because if the contract is linked to any of the suspended provisions, then it could not have been legally executed at any time, it warns.
In any case, the City Council had the opportunity to request the modification of the provisional measure due to a change in circumstances, and it did not do so either, continues the TSJC, adding that the council always complied with the strength of the Provisional Measures Order which, from its notification to the parties, has prevented any valid action on the suspended provisions.
The TSJC specifies that there is a right of appeal against this Order with a filing period of five working days.
