The TSJIB knocks down the modification of the Palma galleys regulation due to a procedural defect

PalmaThe Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands (TSJIB) has declared the partial modification of the municipal regulation for the urban transport service of passengers with animal-drawn vehicles in Palma, popularly known as galeras, to be contrary to the law. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber considers that the Palma City Council omitted a mandatory gender impact assessment report, which determines the nullity of the approved modification.

The resolution affects several articles of the municipal regulation and condemns Cort (the City Council) to pay the judicial costs, with a limit of 3,000 euros. The sentence, however, is not final and can still be appealed by cassation.

The lawsuit was filed by holders of galera licenses, who denounced irregularities in the processing of the administrative file. According to the plaintiffs, the previous regulations already guaranteed animal welfare and the modification did not correctly follow citizen participation procedures. They also criticized that the City Council did not include the gender impact report required by current legislation.

For its part, the Palma City Council argued that the reform aimed to strengthen animal welfare and road safety, especially by prohibiting equines from working in conditions of high temperatures. Cort also maintained that the absence of the gender impact report was irrelevant because the modification "has no gender impact."

The magistrates reject this argument and recall that Balearic regulations require the inclusion of this report in the elaboration of general provisions approved by public administrations. Specifically, they cite Law 11/2016 on equality of women and men, which establishes the mandatory nature of this assessment.

The Chamber highlights that it was precisely this report that should have determined whether the modification had a gender impact or not. Furthermore, the judges emphasize that a legal report included in the same administrative file already warned of the need to include it before the final approval of the regulation.

Therefore, the TSJIB concludes that the omission of this procedure requires the annulment of the modification of the ordinance in accordance with the jurisprudential doctrine of the Supreme Court.