The City Council is exploring options to "continue defending the general interest" following the Supreme Court's ruling on the APR7

The mayor of Benidorm, Toni Pérez, issued a message of reassurance to the public this afternoon after learning of the Supreme Court's ruling rejecting the City Council's appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJ) on the land owned by two companies in Serra Gelada. Specifically, the ruling issued by the First Section of the Contentious-Administrative Division of the TSJ on May 23, which 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 development rights they own within the APR-7 sector of Serra Gelada. Toni Pérez held a press conference in which he explained that municipal experts from the legal and economic areas met this morning to "explore all avenues to continue defending the general interest of all the residents of Benidorm, as we have always done in this matter." The mayor recalled that the City Council learned of the content of this ruling late yesterday and that a meeting of spokespersons was convened to inform the municipal political groups about it, "in an exercise of transparency, as we have always done."

He also stated that from now on, "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."

"It is still too early to advance the roadmap that the legal and economic services will establish, but I can assure you that it will not be different from the one undertaken based on the countless technical, legal, and economic reports related to this matter," the mayor explained. This entails a certain judicial complexity due to the number of open cases. On the one hand, there is the case regarding 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 the subject of the Supreme Court ruling. 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 has five open cases: two already resolved in the First Instance Court, which have ruled in favour of the City Council and confirmed that such agreements would be null and void, and which are being appealed; and three others that have yet to be ruled on.

During his appearance, Toni Pérez explained that "all the decisions adopted regarding these agreements by the Popular Party government are supported by experts and by the Legal Advisory Council itself, as well as by the courts of first instance, which have always ruled in our favour so far." He also noted that these recent agreements, those of 2010 and 2013, "were signed first by a socialist government and then by a coalition of socialists and liberals, when the land had already been declared a Natural Park and the Environmental Impact Declaration had been issued."

He also reiterated that the local government "has always maintained the same position regarding the nullity of these agreements, regardless of who the appellants were," unlike the attitude adopted by the socialist group "which, with the same proposals, the same reports, and the same text, has voted one way or another in the plenary session depending on who the appellant was." For this reason, he asked PSOE spokesperson Cristina Escoda to explain "why it renewed some expired agreements in 2010 and then supported them again in 2013." He recalled that in the latter case, "the agreements had to be approved with the casting vote of then-Mayor Agustín Navarro, with the support of the PSOE and the Liberals, compared to the dissenting votes of the PP and the non-affiliated Juan Ángel Ferrer." On this point, Pérez stated that those agreements "always generated many doubts for the Popular Party" and that "since then, our position has always been the same: the defence of the general interest."

On the other hand, he pointed out that "the City Council has not yet exhausted all avenues" about this land and clarified that "we are not at the procedural stage of having to address this patrimonial liability" that would arise from the ruling issued by the TSJ (High Court of Justice), against which the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal. "The experts have opened up a range of possibilities that need to be specified," he said, after which he also clarified that the City Council "is fully qualified to negotiate, provided the law allows it and as long as it doesn't happen at a procedural stage that could affect the public interest."

The mayor insisted on conveying "calm and tranquillity to the residents of Benidorm, in contrast to the unrest that others wish to spread." "Benidorm has a good government, honourable, honest, and hardworking," he added, adding that "we will continue to act with the same integrity as we have up to now and will not take any steps that could jeopardize the general interest, because that is what we are committed to."