The Autonomous Community regulation on the resolution of urban planning discipline conflicts between Local Entities and the Autonomous Communities cannot disregard the provisions of the Law on the Bases of Local Regime.
Supreme Court ruling nº 930/2021, June 28 (rec. 1625/2020), deals with the resolution of urban planning discipline conflicts between Local Bodies and the Autonomous Communities. Specifically, it is debated whether the Autonomous Administration can establish a system of conflict resolution and control of legality with respect to the acts of Local Entities that is of preferential application to the provisions of articles 65 and 66 of the Law of Bases of Local Regime (hereinafter, LBRL) and, in any case, whether this preferential regime could contemplate the autonomous and subsidiary exercise of local powers in town planning matters to proceed with the demolition of the building without having previously obtained the annulment of the licence.
The judgment analyses a case in which the Town Council of Cendea de Cizur granted a planning permission for the extension of a family home on an undeveloped land. The Navarre regional administration, however, considered that it was not a mere extension of the building, but a new construction which, therefore, required regional authorisation, and that it was not legalizable. For this reason, it invoked article 201 of the Foral Law 35/2002, December 20, according to which the regional administration can require the Town Council to adopt measures to restore urban planning legality within a period of three months, and if the local authority does not act within this period, the competent department of the regional administration can do so in a subsidiary manner. Since the Cizur Town Council failed to act, the regional administration initiated the proceedings for the restoration of legality and ordered the demolition of the house.
The Town Council appealed to the High Court of Justice of Navarre, alleging that the Regional Administration had infringed Articles 65 and 66 LBRL, which determine that if the State or Autonomous Community Administration considers that an act or agreement of the Local Entity infringes the legal system, and the latter remains inactive after having requested it within a period of one month to annul the act in question, it must challenge the act before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The High Court of Justice rejected the City Council’s appeal because it considered that the Foral Law was a special rule on the matter, and for this reason, its provisions had to be applied with preference to the LBRL.
In order to resolve the debate, the High Court recalls that the principle of local autonomy must be respected by the autonomous legislator, who cannot disregard the provisions of the LBRL to guarantee the effectiveness of this principle. Given that the system provided for in the Law of Bases determines that the control of legality of municipal acts that involve the exercise of local competences corresponds exclusively to the Courts of Justice, the regional administration was obliged to request the annulment of the licence there. For all these reasons, the Court upheld the City Council’s appeal and annulled the decision of the regional administration ordering the demolition.
Supreme Court ruling nº 930/2021, June 28 (rec. 1625/2020), deals with the resolution of urban planning discipline conflicts between Local Bodies and the Autonomous Communities. Specifically, it is debated whether the Autonomous Administration can establish a system of conflict resolution and control of legality with respect to the acts of Local Entities that is of preferential application to the provisions of articles 65 and 66 of the Law of Bases of Local Regime (hereinafter, LBRL) and, in any case, whether this preferential regime could contemplate the autonomous and subsidiary exercise of local powers in town planning matters to proceed with the demolition of the building without having previously obtained the annulment of the licence.
The judgment analyses a case in which the Town Council of Cendea de Cizur granted a planning permission for the extension of a family home on an undeveloped land. The Navarre regional administration, however, considered that it was not a mere extension of the building, but a new construction which, therefore, required regional authorisation, and that it was not legalizable. For this reason, it invoked article 201 of the Foral Law 35/2002, December 20, according to which the regional administration can require the Town Council to adopt measures to restore urban planning legality within a period of three months, and if the local authority does not act within this period, the competent department of the regional administration can do so in a subsidiary manner. Since the Cizur Town Council failed to act, the regional administration initiated the proceedings for the restoration of legality and ordered the demolition of the house.
The Town Council appealed to the High Court of Justice of Navarre, alleging that the Regional Administration had infringed Articles 65 and 66 LBRL, which determine that if the State or Autonomous Community Administration considers that an act or agreement of the Local Entity infringes the legal system, and the latter remains inactive after having requested it within a period of one month to annul the act in question, it must challenge the act before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The High Court of Justice rejected the City Council’s appeal because it considered that the Foral Law was a special rule on the matter, and for this reason, its provisions had to be applied with preference to the LBRL.
In order to resolve the debate, the High Court recalls that the principle of local autonomy must be respected by the autonomous legislator, who cannot disregard the provisions of the LBRL to guarantee the effectiveness of this principle. Given that the system provided for in the Law of Bases determines that the control of legality of municipal acts that involve the exercise of local competences corresponds exclusively to the Courts of Justice, the regional administration was obliged to request the annulment of the licence there. For all these reasons, the Court upheld the City Council’s appeal and annulled the decision of the regional administration ordering the demolition.
Notwithstanding the above, the constitutionality of the article of the Navarre Regional Law is not questioned: the Supreme Court determines that the precept does not, in fact, seek to establish an alternative system to that of the Law of Bases -as the High Court of Justice had understood it- but rather that it is a different case, which allows the Regional Administration to replace the Town Council only in cases in which the works have been carried out on non-developable land without a licence or regional authorisation, and in which, furthermore, the Town Council does not act, being fully compatible with the provisions of the LBRL.
Supreme Court ruling nº 930/2021, June 28 (rec. 1625/2020), deals with the resolution of urban planning discipline conflicts between Local Bodies and the Autonomous Communities. Specifically, it is debated whether the Autonomous Administration can establish a system of conflict resolution and control of legality with respect to the acts of Local Entities that is of preferential application to the provisions of articles 65 and 66 of the Law of Bases of Local Regime (hereinafter, LBRL) and, in any case, whether this preferential regime could contemplate the autonomous and subsidiary exercise of local powers in town planning matters to proceed with the demolition of the building without having previously obtained the annulment of the licence.
The judgment analyses a case in which the Town Council of Cendea de Cizur granted a planning permission for the extension of a family home on an undeveloped land. The Navarre regional administration, however, considered that it was not a mere extension of the building, but a new construction which, therefore, required regional authorisation, and that it was not legalizable. For this reason, it invoked article 201 of the Foral Law 35/2002, December 20, according to which the regional administration can require the Town Council to adopt measures to restore urban planning legality within a period of three months, and if the local authority does not act within this period, the competent department of the regional administration can do so in a subsidiary manner. Since the Cizur Town Council failed to act, the regional administration initiated the proceedings for the restoration of legality and ordered the demolition of the house.
The Town Council appealed to the High Court of Justice of Navarre, alleging that the Regional Administration had infringed Articles 65 and 66 LBRL, which determine that if the State or Autonomous Community Administration considers that an act or agreement of the Local Entity infringes the legal system, and the latter remains inactive after having requested it within a period of one month to annul the act in question, it must challenge the act before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The High Court of Justice rejected the City Council’s appeal because it considered that the Foral Law was a special rule on the matter, and for this reason, its provisions had to be applied with preference to the LBRL.
In order to resolve the debate, the High Court recalls that the principle of local autonomy must be respected by the autonomous legislator, who cannot disregard the provisions of the LBRL to guarantee the effectiveness of this principle. Given that the system provided for in the Law of Bases determines that the control of legality of municipal acts that involve the exercise of local competences corresponds exclusively to the Courts of Justice, the regional administration was obliged to request the annulment of the licence there. For all these reasons, the Court upheld the City Council’s appeal and annulled the decision of the regional administration ordering the demolition.
Notwithstanding the above, the constitutionality of the article of the Navarre Regional Law is not questioned: the Supreme Court determines that the precept does not, in fact, seek to establish an alternative system to that of the Law of Bases -as the High Court of Justice had understood it- but rather that it is a different case, which allows the Regional Administration to replace the Town Council only in cases in which the works have been carried out on non-developable land without a licence or regional authorisation, and in which, furthermore, the Town Council does not act, being fully compatible with the provisions of the LBRL.