Search

Copyright of Revista de Estudios de la Administración Local y Autonómica is the property of Instituto Nacional de Administracion Publica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Supreme Court Judgment of April 3, 2024 resolves an administrative appeal filed by Mercantil against Royal Decree 35/2023, which approves the revision of the hydrological plans of several hydrographic basins. The appeal challenges provisions related to the use of desalinated water and argues that this water cannot be considered external resources and must be subject to the administrative concession regime. The Supreme Court concludes that desalinated water is part of the public hydraulic domain and its use is subject to concessions and authorizations granted by the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Court dismisses the appeal and establishes that previous agreements are not sufficient for the exclusive use of desalinated water. The judgment reinforces the perspective that desalinated water is a public hydraulic domain asset and must be used rationally. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a summary of a court case, specifically the Supreme Court's ruling on March 12, 2024, regarding urban planning and environmental evaluation. The case involved a dispute over the approval of a Special Plan for the Logistics Activities Zone (ZAL) of the Port of Valencia in Spain. The court determined that the plan should have undergone a more comprehensive environmental evaluation process, rather than a simplified one. However, the court also considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the fact that the land had already been developed and integrated into the urban fabric. The ruling highlights the importance of incorporating environmental considerations into urban planning decisions. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a summary of a court case, specifically the Supreme Court's ruling on February 29, 2024, regarding a legal dispute over the use of desalinated water in Spain. The case involved a company called Mercantil challenging a government decree that included regulations on the use of desalinated water. The court ultimately ruled against Mercantil, stating that desalinated water falls under the category of public water resources and requires a concession for private use. The ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting public water resources and the role of water planning in ensuring their sustainable use. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental is the property of CIEMAT, through its Centro Internacional de Estudios de Derecho Ambiental (CIEDA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Supreme Court Judgment of February 8, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by Naturgy Generación S.L. against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. The appeal refers to the taxable base in the Special Coal Tax and whether the "higher calorific value" or gross (HCV) or the "lower calorific value" or net (LCV) should be taken into account. The Supreme Court considers that the taxable base of the tax is constituted by the energy power of coal, expressed in gigajoules (GJ), taking into consideration the higher calorific value of coal. This decision is based on the environmental purpose of the tax. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of March 6, 2023 resolves the appeals filed by several companies and entities against the extension of the occupancy concession of a cellulose paste factory in Pontevedra. The judgment is based on the need to justify the occupation of the land and the lack of accreditation of the environmental requirements by the company ENCE. In addition, the need to prove compliance with environmental legislation in the granting of concession extensions in the maritime-terrestrial public domain is discussed. The judgment also mentions the possible impact of the Climate Change and Energy Transition Law and the Royal Decree that modifies the General Coastal Regulation. The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the extension of occupancy concessions in the maritime-terrestrial public domain, up to a maximum of seventy-five years, with the same regime of use and activity as before the entry into force of the Coastal Law (LC), but subject to environmental requirements. However, Judge Ángeles Huet de Sande issued a dissenting opinion advocating for a restrictive interpretation of the transitional provisions of the 1988 LC, in line with the protection and sustainable use of the coastline. The judgment highlights the need to reconcile acquired rights with the protection of the coastline and mentions the Climate Change and Energy Transition Law as a relevant element in the planning and management of the maritime-terrestrial public domain. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 30, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by a commercial company against a judgment issued by the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León. The appeal refers to the exemption of taxes on hydrocarbons for the production of electricity from biogas. The Supreme Court determines that the production of electricity from biogas falls within the framework of promoting renewable energies and, therefore, enjoys direct exemption, while the production of energy from fossil sources may establish exceptions for environmental reasons. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 9, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Central Union of Irrigators against the lack of execution of the administrative act regarding the request for environmental information from the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Supreme Court determined that the silence produced should be considered negative, applying the Transparency Law 19/2013. The judgment establishes that the Administration's silence in response to a request for environmental information should be interpreted in a negative sense and highlights the need to review Law 27/2006 to establish a legal framework specific to the right of access to environmental information. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of December 19, 2022 resolves an appeal filed by the Community of Madrid against the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid that declared the nullity of a decision of the Government Council of the Community of Madrid approving the creation of the "Cañada Real de Madrid" livestock route. The judgment considers that the environmental assessment procedure for the creation of the route was omitted, which makes it null. However, there is a dissenting individual vote that argues that the construction of the route will not appreciably affect a protected area. The Supreme Court determines that the creation of the livestock route can be considered a project subject to environmental impact assessment and that it can appreciably affect a protected area. The Supreme Court has considered the appealed judgment to be in accordance with the law and has dismissed the appeal. The concept of "appreciable" used to define the possible environmental impact of a project that affects a protected area derives from the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Law and the Habitats Directive. The European Commission has addressed the concept of "appreciable impact" in relation to the Natura 2000 network, establishing that it cannot be treated arbitrarily and that it applies to projects both inside and outside a protected area. In the case of the creation of a livestock route, it is considered a project that can appreciably affect a protected area if it cannot be ruled out that it will produce significant effects or impacts on the conservation objectives of the site. The determination of the scope of environmental impact assessment remains a complex and controversial issue, and the interpretive work of the Courts is fundamental. The Judgment seeks to find a balance between environmental prevention objectives and the specific case data, guaranteeing environmental protection. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of December 16, 2022 resolves an appeal filed by the General State Administration against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Extremadura. The case refers to the request for authorization to exploit groundwater by individuals in Valdepeñas, Ciudad Real. The trial court granted the appeal and recognized the right to private use of water for irrigation purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the trial court, arguing that the Administration did not provide evidence of impediments to granting the authorization. The judgment establishes that both surface and groundwater are considered a renewable unitary resource and a public hydraulic domain. It mentions the obligation for each River Basin Authority to keep a Water Register to guarantee the existence and status of concessions or rights to private water use. Additionally, it highlights that the Administration is responsible for monitoring and verifying the requirements for private exploitation of groundwater. The judgment also addresses the lack of resources and personnel in the hydraulic administration to carry out control and supervision tasks. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental is the property of CIEMAT, through its Centro Internacional de Estudios de Derecho Ambiental (CIEDA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Supreme Court has resolved an appeal filed by the Generalitat of Valencia against a Royal Decree that regulates the transfer through the Tajo-Segura aqueduct. The Court considers that the modification made in the Royal Decree is legal and rejects the arguments of lack of motivation and arbitrariness. The reduction of the monthly water transfer is highlighted and this measure is justified due to exceptional situations and the need for regular and stable exploitation. The importance of updating the parameters of the exploitation rule to guarantee an acceptable frequency of exceptional situations is also mentioned. In addition, the participation of the National Water Council and the Water Council of the demarcation in water planning and management is discussed, and the need for better inter-administrative cooperation in water legislation is pointed out. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of March 30, 2022 resolves the contentious-administrative appeals filed by several commercial entities against Royal Decree 27/2021, which modifies the decrees on batteries and accumulators and waste from electrical and electronic equipment. The Supreme Court rejects the arguments of the appellants and considers that the Government can establish the necessary measures to guarantee extended producer responsibility. The Royal Decree aims to transpose a Directive and improve the management of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The new Waste Law maintains the principle of extended producer responsibility and seeks to promote the reuse and recycling of waste. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court's ruling in March 2022 resolves an appeal filed by the Ecologists in Action Granada Federation against the modification of the General Urban Development Plan (PGOU) of Motril. The Court determines that the plan modification does not require a strategic environmental assessment, as it does not significantly affect the environment. It is argued that the modification is temporary and not substantive. The Court examines the applicable legislation and case law and concludes that the strategic environmental assessment can be exempted in cases where there is no significant impact on the environment. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of February 23, 2022 resolves an appeal filed by Mr. Segismundo and Mr. Silvio against the City Council of Ferrol. The lower court's ruling had declared partial nullity of the Special Protection and Rehabilitation Plan for the Ferrol Vello neighborhood for not having undergone a strategic environmental assessment. However, it allowed for the rectification of the plan during the execution phase. The Supreme Court determined that the Plan was null and void for lacking a strategic assessment and annulled the lower court's ruling. The judgment establishes that essential procedural flaws in the development of urban plans result in the complete nullity of the plan, without the possibility of rectification. Although the judgment recognizes the importance of environmental protection, it also considers the implications for the municipality and its citizens. It emphasizes the need for urban planning instruments to be subordinate to the requirements of strategic environmental assessment in order to guarantee environmental protection. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court ruling of February 2, 2022 resolves an appeal filed by a company against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Galicia. The case concerns the direct granting of mining exploitation and the viability of the project. The Supreme Court determines that mining regulations do not allow for the modification of the duration period of exploitation concessions and that, in this case, the ten-year concession is valid. The ruling also highlights the importance of submitting a resource utilization project when applying for a mining concession and the connection between mining exploitation projects and the Environmental Impact Assessment. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court of Spain has resolved an administrative contentious appeal filed by the Provincial Association of Winemaking Entrepreneurs of Ciudad Real against Royal Decree 557/2020. The association challenged article 5 of the regulation, which establishes economic aid for the distillation of wines, arguing that it was discriminatory not to include the same amount of aid for organic wines. However, the Supreme Court considered that there was no discrimination, since organic wines could benefit from the Protected Designation of Origin regime and receive a higher amount of aid. Additionally, the court dismissed the request for annulment of article 6, as it considered that the deadline granted for the aid was sufficient. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 21, 2022 resolves an administrative contentious appeal filed by the Association of Companies and Professionals of Boreholes and Drilling against Royal Decree 51/2019, which approves the Hydrological Plan of the Balearic Islands. The Supreme Court rejects the grounds raised by the appellant regarding procedural, environmental, and competence aspects in the approval of the Plan. The judgment highlights the importance of following the established rules regarding water use and the prohibition of authorizing groundwater uses to ensure its good condition. It also mentions that the review of the Hydrological Plan of the Balearic Islands is supported by legislation and is carried out to address the recommendations of the European Commission regarding deficiencies in the compliance with the Water Framework Directive. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental is the property of CIEMAT, through its Centro Internacional de Estudios de Derecho Ambiental (CIEDA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

La Sentencia seleccionada resuelve el recurso de casación número 8388/2019 interpuesto por el Ayuntamiento de Madrid, y por la mercantil «Residencial Maravillas Sociedad Cooperativa Madrid», contra la sentencia núm. 527/19, de 17 de septiembre, estimatoria parcial del procedimiento ordinario núm. 278/16 interpuesto por la representación procesal de «Ecologistas en Acción Madrid-Aedenat» contra el acuerdo del Pleno del Ayuntamiento de Madrid de fecha 27 de noviembre de 2015, que aprueba definitivamente el Plan Parcial de Reforma Interior del Área de Planeamiento Remitido 07.09 «TPA Raimundo Fernández Villaverde», siendo parte recurrida «Ecologistas en Acción Madrid-Aedenat». La Sala de instancia había estimado parcialmente el recurso, declarando la nulidad de pleno derecho del instrumento urbanístico. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La presente Sentencia resuelve el recurso contencioso-administrativo núm. 65/2019 interpuesto por Asociación Alianza Mar Blava, contra el Real Decreto 1519/2018, de 28 de diciembre, por el que se otorga la segunda prórroga a la concesión de explotación de hidrocarburos «Casablanca», siendo parte demandada la Administración del Estado, y codemandadas las entidades Repsol Investigaciones Petrolíferas, S.A., Cepsa E.P España, S.L.U., Cnwl Oil España, S.L., y Petroleum Oil & Gas España, S.A. Debe señalarse que la explotación de hidrocarburos citada se encuentra situada frente a las costas de Tarragona, y que fue otorgada por el Real Decreto 3046/1978, de 3 de noviembre, por un período de 30 años, a favor de un grupo de sociedades, que, a día de hoy, está integrado por las codemendadas. La primera prórroga se otorgó por diez años, y fue acordada por Real Decreto 237/2009, de 23 de febrero. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]