Sustainable Tourism Law

266 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW Well, through the final provision 2.1 of the LGMU, which modifies Article 5.b) of Law 17/2009, the possibility of resorting to an ex ante control regime is even more restricted, because these can only be justified, not according to any of the compelling reasons referred to in Article 3.11 of Law 17/2009, but only for “reasons of public order, public safety, public health, protection of the environment, or when the shortage of natural resources or the existence of unambiguous technical impediments limit the number of economic operators in the market”. They have left out reasons of essential public interest, in my opinion, as for example: the defence of historical and artistic heritage, the defence of consumers and users, etc. As is easily understandable, this further restricts the possibility of using these ex ante control systems, which is very questionable. In this sense, I must indicate that I do not think it is a very wise decision by the legislator. I cannot establish myself as a defender of the authorization regimes, because sometimes they have deficiencies that affect the rights of individuals and companies. But they are necessary in many cases, because the systems of further control that seek to replace them are not sufficient and adequate to safeguard the general interests at stake. This was stated by Santiago MUÑOZ MACHADO, indicating that “An excess of administrative intervention can be criticized. Especially if there are ways to avoid it without detracting from precaution and taking care of the general values mentioned above. Although previous administrative interventions do not break the market, they can delay private economic initiatives and even discourage them from undertaking them. The withdrawal of previous administrative interventions on the economic activity of individuals and companies is considered in Law 20/2013 as if it were a panacea that will bring implausible results made explicit in the paragraphs of its preamble that I have reproduced at the beginning. Faced with this enthusiasm, I must insist that prior authorizations do not necessarily violate the unity of the market. They may condition free movement and establishment, but they do so for legitimate reasons of general interest. What is reprehensible is not the recourse to the authorizing techniquebut the slownesswithwhich the responsible administrations apply it. But if the authorizations are imposed legislatively, in a proportionate manner and for justified reasons of general interest, little can be said about them. Therefore, it is totally inappropriate to consider that prior administrative authorizations are old when, in fact, they are procedures for controlling the compliance with legality that are difficult to replace” 20 . 20 MUÑOZ MACHADO, S., “On the legal restoration of the market unit”, op. cit .