The Municipal Council of Adeje has lodged its anticipated appeal against the judgment that revokes 15 taxi licenses in the municipality due to the restrictions placed on participation in the bases, which were sanctioned in June 2023. The Council’s appeal, which is submitted to Court number 2 of the contentious jurisdiction of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, challenges the ruling made on December 10 by three main arguments, specifically to refute the assertion made by the Court that the regulation for this contest was improperly approved. According to the municipal lawyer, Article 11.3 of Decree 74/2012 (dated August 2), which ratifies the Taxis Service regulation, stipulates that each municipality must adjudicate license requests in favour of applicants with “greater accredited preference rights”.
The defence team for the Adomnee Corporation maintains that this prerogative empowers the local authority to create a more stringent preliminary screening in the bases to avert an excessively prolonged process. “The Council and its legal advisers could initially accommodate the 356 applicants, but it is evident that, for the majority, at a certain stage in the process, they would not meet specific criteria and thus would be eliminated.” Consequently, and following the municipal line of argument, the screening is streamlined with varied criteria that have not received backing from Court number 2.
The local lawyer asserts that the Council has correctly applied the law to simplify the procedure, as many of the 356 applicants might not satisfy all the criteria if all opted to submit their applications.
Furthermore, the appeal argues in its second point that the intended goal of the procedure is lacking, as they believe the contest bases cease to exist with the resolution of the contest alongside the plenary agreement, thus no longer governing. In this context, the municipal lawyer interprets that if no process exists, it cannot be interrupted or contested.
The third basis for the appeal is more formal, technical, and legal, referring to a purported breach of an article from the regulatory law for contentious and administrative proceedings.
The ruling delivered on December 10 by Court number 2 of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction emerged shortly after the municipal elections held on May 28. This sentence was prompted by a complaint from the Association of Saralized Taxists Costa Adeje (Ataca), which comprises professionals from this transport sector in that municipality in Southern Tenerife, one of the most significant areas due to its tourism industry and governed by the PSOE with an absolute majority since 1987 under the leadership of José Miguel Rodríguez Fraga, who is the president of the Canarian socialists.
The association, which has contested the process and has been highly critical of the local administration for many years, believes that the intention was fundamentally to “buy votes” in exchange for these licences, although this objective is not referenced in the sentence or complaints. The ruling was made in favour of “irregularities” and procedural misconduct by the governing team, which they believe undermines a democracy rooted in legality and the rule of law. The entity is particularly scathing regarding the mayor’s management, as well as that of María Mercedes Vargas, the councillor for security, promotion of economic activity, and employment, who oversees legal services, alongside other councillors. In fact, they are calling for the resignation of at least the first three incumbents following this verdict.
Additionally, the association, led by Pedro José Afonso, contends that the appeal—which was anticipated from the governing body against the judicial ruling—will face obstacles. They also express concerns that an additional 16 licenses may emerge stemming from the bases established in June 2023. They emphasise that each new permit costs 400,000 euros and that among the individuals who received some of those 15 licenses, two were members of this group, who have since been expelled.
It is highly likely that the resolution regarding the appeal will take a considerable amount of time, possibly almost a year.
