The Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, through its Mobility Department, declared on Tuesday that it intends to file an appeal with the Supreme Court concerning the verdict issued by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC), which invalidates the Municipal Mobility Ordinance.
The Tenerife Council has stated that, based on this judgment, the Chamber deems the analysis presented in the related documentation accompanying the ordinance, which was approved by the municipal assembly in December 2023, to be “insufficient.” This conclusion is not one that the City Council agrees with; hence, they are proceeding to file the aforementioned appeal.
In the judgement, the TSJC highlights that they cannot regard the analysis forming part of the administrative file as adequate. They note that its 38 pages lack a detailed examination of the ordinance’s articles, expressing that the terms of the so-called analysis could apply to any mobility ordinance that might be adopted, as they are too vague.
The TSJC goes on to cite several clauses verbatim to illustrate the “simple assertion of generalities” that the analysis entails, indicating that legal considerations such as “zero alternatives” are not addressed. In essence, the analysis does not discuss the implications for the city if the ordinance were not endorsed, despite this being a legal requirement.
“Thus, we arrive at a lengthy list summarising what we have already noted: it cannot rightly be deemed a regulatory impact analysis document that is disconnected from the ordinance articles,” the judgement states.
Evelyn Alonso, the City Council’s Mobility Councillor (Canarian Coalition), has asserted that she believes while the legal process is ongoing, and with the filing of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the currently approved ordinance will remain valid until the higher court makes its ruling.
“It should be made clear that the ordinance was accompanied by a Normative Impact Analysis Report, which the Chamber finds to be inadequate,” she stated. Not only insufficient, but the TSJC’s ruling criticises that the document referred to as “memory” merely carries “the title” since it represents a “simple declaration of generalities without any analysis of the specific ordinance that it should reference.” It is specifically noted in the judgement that none of the 38 pages of this memory provides a detailed breakdown of the ordinance text, article by article. It emphasizes: “The terminology used in this alleged analysis is so ambiguous that it could apply to any mobility ordinance that might be established.”
