The City Council is exploring legal avenues to "continue defending the general interest" following the Supreme Court's ruling on the APR-7 project

The mayor of Benidorm, Toni Pérez, issued a new message of calm and caution this afternoon after learning of the ruling by the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of the Valencian Community, which ruled that the motion for annulment of the ruling filed by Benidorm City Council against the TSJ's ruling on the land owned by two commercial companies in Serra Gelada was dismissed.

Specifically, the ruling issued by the First Section of the Administrative Litigation Division of this court on May 23, 2024, established that the City Council must pay €283 million plus corresponding legal interest to the companies Murcia Puchades Expasión SL and Urban Villajoyosa 2000 SL in compensation for the urban development rights they own, included in the APR-7 sector.

Toni Pérez held a press conference this Wednesday to publicly share all the information regarding this ruling, which was notified to the City Council yesterday, June 24th, and which all municipal groups were also informed about today at a spokespersons' meeting "with the utmost transparency, as we committed to and as has been done up to now." Likewise, as he has reiterated since the first pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Justice, the mayor reiterated that the municipal legal experts are "exploring all avenues at our disposal to continue defending the general interest of all the residents of Benidorm, as we have always pursued in this matter."

"We will continue along the same lines we have followed since we took office in 2015, which is none other than defending the interests of all Benidorm residents," the mayor asserted, after which he recalled that "our roadmap, which is the roadmap outlined by the experts regarding the agreements, has not changed one iota." "Benidorm City Council had no other path to follow to defend the general interest than the one it took, always based on technical criteria, and this is repeatedly reflected in court rulings," Toni Pérez insisted, adding that "it is the justice system that, in its chamber at the Supreme Court of Justice, has guided its decisions in a different direction than that which the contentious courts have so far been setting forth."

For this reason, he stated that "it is still too early to predict the roadmap that the legal services will establish" from now on, and therefore called for "calm and prudence" before pointing out that one of the possible options would be to go to the Constitutional Court, if the technical reports so advise, "because that cannot be decided by a mayor or any of the councilors." In this regard, Pérez recalled that "a politician cannot make a decision contrary to technical criteria because that is stipulated by law and has a name," after which he indicated that "that is the responsibility of governing. There may be uncomfortable decisions or ones you don't like, but they are the ones the experts tell you you must make."

He also noted that this matter continues to entail a certain judicial complexity because several cases are still open. On the one hand, there is the case concerning the City Council's liability for said land based on the agreements signed in 2003 and 2004 and renewed in 2010 and 2013, which is what the Supreme Court's ruling notified yesterday refers to. On the other hand, there is the case related to the City Council's ex officio review and declaration of nullity of those same agreements, a line that is still ongoing and with five cases open in the courts: two already resolved in the First Instance Court, which have ruled in favor of the City Council and confirmed that said agreements would be null and void, and which are being appealed; and another three that have yet to be ruled on. Finally, Toni Pérez insisted that "all decisions made regarding these agreements are supported by experts and the Legal Advisory Council itself, as well as by the rulings of the First Instance Courts," which have so far ruled in favour of the City Council in its defence of the public interest.