Sustainable Tourism Law

268 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW way, being more worried about carrying out a distribution of powers between autonomous authorities than to regulate the content of such supervision. The best thing, according to my estimation, is that Law 39/2015, of October 1, of Common Administrative Procedure before Public Administrations, would have regulated these ex post control systems appropriately. That is to say, that the statement responsible for the communication had been properly differentiated in the first place, separating when one or the other should be used. Second, to establish the minimum content of the corresponding and necessary ex post control. However, neither one thing nor the other has been done. The same regulation has been maintained, practically, in Law 30/1992, of November 26, which was precisely modified to adapt to the Services Directive. It has not taken advantage, in short, of a very good opportunity to properly configure the systems of ex post control in a law, featuring a general character such as the common administrative procedure 22 . III.6.- Limitation of the concept of “overriding reasons relating to the public interest”: new configuration of the principle of necessity I have already referred to this when I spoke about the regime of authorizations configured in the LGMU, but it is appropriate to reiterate this, although it may be repetitive, because this concept is essential in the new systems of administrative intervention. As was already the case in the Services Directive and transposition laws, ex ante control regimes should be justified in an overriding reason of general interest, that is, to comply with the so-called necessity principle. In this sense, the change introduced by the LGMU with respect to the Directive indicates that, while it could claim any overriding reason of general interest from those established in Article 4.8, it is also an open concept 23 , which can now only be based on any of the four compelling reasons included in article 22 REBOLLO PUIG, Manuel, “The Autonomous State after the Law of Guarantee of the Market Unit and its principles of national necessity and effectiveness”, op. cit ., p. 102. 23 REBOLLO PUIG, M., “The principle of necessity and proportionality of limits to economic activities”, in GUILLÉN CARAMÉS, J. Y CUERDO MIR, M., (Directors), RAMS RAMOS, L., (Coordinator), Estudios on the Law on the Guarantee of Market Unity , cit., “In art. 4.8 of the Directive the list is exemplary, that is, it indicates some interests considered compelling reasons but without prejudice to others that deserve equal qualification according to what the CJEU has already declared or what the CJEU itself will be declaring in the future. It literally says that the “recognized as such in the jurisprudence of the CJEU” is a compelling reason and adds “including the following”. Its enumeration, therefore, is not exhaustive and closed, and of course it does not exclude that there are other compelling reasons that can be deduced from previous European jurisprudence or that the CJEU detects and consecrates in the future”.