Alicante (EFE).- The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has dismissed the precautionary suspension of the staggering of the ecological flows of the Tagus for 2026 and 2027 established in Royal Decree 35/2023, considering that this rejection does not “deprive ” of the purpose that the Generalitat proposes in its appeal for the ecological flow, which would be applied, at the earliest, in 2026.
The order of the Supreme Court rejects that, if the suspension is not agreed, the appeal is deprived of a legitimate purpose, since the challenge refers to ecological flows that would not be applied until 2026 and 2027, “a more than reasonable time for the Chamber to be able to issue a sentence, without prejudice to the fact that the precautionary measure can be requested at any time as provided by law.
Precautionary measures
Judicial sources have recalled that the appeal of the Generalitat deals with the ninth additional provision and appendix 5, referring to the ecological flows of the Tagus hydrological plan, of Royal Decree 35/2023, of January 24, which approves the revision of the hydrological plans of different hydrographic demarcations.
Thus, the Generalitat proposed as a precautionary measure the suspension of the staggering of the ecological flows of the Tagus for the years 2026 and 2027, between the Bolarque dam and the Valdecañas reservoir.
However, the Chamber’s order explains that “the first step -of ecological flows-, applicable immediately to the entry into force of Royal Decree 35/2023 until December 31, 2025, does not appeal.”
The Court does not appreciate reasons to suspend it
The Chamber also states that it is not appreciated that the Generalitat has reasons that justify the suspension from the perspective of the appearance of good law.
“As has been repeatedly stated by the jurisprudence, this criterion, -that of the precautionary suspension- not included in the Jurisdiction Law although not excluded by it, must be applied with extreme prudence because it implies a pronouncement on the merits of the dispute in the initial moments of the process”, underlines the Supreme Court.
For this reason, the order adds, “it has only been considered applicable in the cases of contesting acts applying provisions declared null, of those that reiterate or are identical to others already annulled or in those cases in which the defects of nullity are manifest of so that it is not necessary to examine them for their appreciation. And the Chamber does not believe that any of these circumstances occur in this case.