Sustainable Tourism Law

QUALITY AND SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 273 Government of the State is entitled to, in matters within its competence, present a Bill that intends to liberalize the economic activity to varying degrees. If this Project passes the corresponding parliamentary procedure, and becomes a law, little can be objected from a legal point of view. However, where we can reproach a gap in the norm is in the matter of the distribution of competences. It can be argued, in this case, that the LGMU violates, clearly in my opinion, the distribution of powers between the State and the autonomous communities. And it is one thing that the LGMU intends to be basic when issuing under the so-called horizontal competency titles (fourth final provision), and another quite different when it intends to be applicable in areas where the autonomous communities have recognized exclusive competence. It is not in accordance with the Constitution that the State intends to impose on the autonomous communities what should or should not be considered as an overriding reason of general interest 35 . These, in the scope of their exclusive competences, should be able to determine which interests are at stake and which should predominate. Otherwise, it would not make sense for the Constitution to give them exclusive powers. Likewise, it cannot be consistent with the Constitution, as I think that the State intends to impose administrative instruments of control against others 36 . In this sense, if an autonomous community understands that, in terms of tourism, certain activities must be submitted, for reasons of public interest, to ex ante control, nothing can be reproached by the State, not even the European Union. The Law of the European Union, which does not interfere in questions of internal distribution of competences, understands that the territorial entities can choose, from among an open list of them, the overriding reason of general interest that they understand adequate, and based on it, articulate an adequate 35 CIDONCHAMARTÍN, A. “On the Law of Guarantee of the Market Unit: A legal-constitutional reflection”, op. cit . p. 129, “The law incurs an excess: in article 5.1, when it reduces the reasons for establishing limits to access or the exercise of economic activities to a broad but closed list. The problem is that the autonomous communities have attributed (even exclusive) competences in many economic sectors. When closing the reasons to limit the freedom of company (and professional freedom), the LGMU, whose regulations bind the CCAA, constrains the regional legislator. This, although it does not see its field of competences reduced, if its effective exercise is affected”. 36 FERNÁNDEZ FARRERES, G., “Unit of market and freedoms of company and circulation of goods in the law 20/2013, of December 9”, Revista Española de Derecho Administrativo , núm. 163, “It turns out, however, that the knowledge of what can be a single market can hardly be maintained in a State of the composite structure, of the regulatory power and of the intervention of finance, is distributed (with unequal scope and intensity), according to the cases between the different territorial instances that compose it, that same constitutional jurisprudence has established that the liberations of establishment and circulation do not prevent the CCAA from having functions whose exercise may include the same and, therefore, are in the single market.