Vox has won the pulse José Luis Martínez-Almeida with the low emissions zone in the capital. The party of Santiago Abascal has celebrated the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) that has put an end to the “Madrid Central de Carmena y de Almeida” and has assured that “FREEDOM prevails in the face of coercion and fines.” «Years of work bear fruit. Only Vox has directly opposed Carmena and Almeida’s Madrid Central. Freedom can return to Madrid,” Rocío Monasterio highlighted on her social networks, while the party’s regional account has insisted that “justice has finally been done.”
This Tuesday the TSJM has canceled the Low Emission Zones of the capital when considering, among other issues, that there is a “patent insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the municipal ordinance. This is stated in a resolution in which the Second Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber voids various precepts of Ordinance 10/2021of September 13, which modifies the Sustainable Mobility Ordinance, of October 5, 2018 of the Madrid City Council.
The ruling specifically annuls those parts of the Ordinance that define the scope of the Low Emissions Zone (ZBE) throughout the municipality of Madrid; and those that establish the two Special Protection Low Emission Zones (ZBEDPE) of “Central District” and “Plaza Elíptica”. In this way, it leaves all the rest of the articles subsisting, including those articles that, in general or by mere reference, refer to the ZBE and ZBEDPE that may be established in the future.
He Superior Court of Justice of Madrid rejects various allegations of the appellants, the Vox Municipal Group at the Madrid City Councilrelating to irregularities in the approval procedure of the Ordinance. However, he upholds the arguments of the appellant regarding the notorious insufficiency of the reports prior to the approval of the Ordinance. Very particularly, following the most recent doctrine of the Supreme Court regarding the procedures for drafting municipal Ordinances, it considers that there is a “manifest insufficiency” of the economic impact report prior to the approval of the Ordinance.
Just transition principle
The magistrates do not question the power of the municipal administration to adopt the measures it deems necessary to protect health and the environment, in accordance with European and national regulations; nor do they question the need to adopt air pollution control measures necessary to guarantee, as soon as possible, compliance with the pollution limit values set by Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the CouncilMay 21, 2008.
However, they consider that there is a “patent insufficiency of the economic impact report” of the measures adopted in the Ordinance, which required taking into consideration their economic consequences, in order to carry out “an adequate weighting of the balance of benefits and costs and the possibility of adopting less restrictive measures with equivalent effect, or that could produce a discriminatory effect for the most economically vulnerable groups.
The ruling especially affects the fact that the restrictive measures adopted by the Ordinance They presumably affect people with less economic capacity, who are prevented or seriously hampered in their ability to access new vehicles that meet environmental requirements.
The Chamber points out that an assessment was not made of this factor, which is so relevant that Law 7/2021 of Climate Change and Energy Transition, enshrines the “principle of just transition”, that is, the need to establish generic plans and concrete measures that consider the situations of vulnerability of groups to whom support measures must be offered in the transition process.
Likewise, the ruling refers to the impact of the measures on thousands of professional vehicles, with a direct impact on competition and market conditions. Considers it of singular importance that the situation of business groups with less economic capacity had been taken into account for the renewal of the vehicle, such as the self-employed, microenterprises or SMEs, but highlights that the reports prior to the approval of the Ordinance do not make reference either. some to this question.
