Sustainable Tourism Law

276 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW territory.” It is true that the following is qualified by saying that it may be limited, by law, and according to the circumstances. But this statement causes, in my opinion, some unrest. On the other hand, it is true that access to service activities and their exercise may be limited as provided in articles 17 and 18 of the Law, but provided that the formal and material requirements provided therein are met, which are not few, as it can be checked in the previous epigraphs. Regardless of the need for a standard in the status of Law, which is logical given that business freedom and the right to free choice of profession and trade may be affected (articles 38 and 35 of the Constitution). Limits that want to impose have to overcome the principle of necessity (that there is an overriding reason of general interest that justifies it) and the principle of proportionality (that there is no less distorting measure). It is true that this was already imposed, in some way, by the Services Directive, but not as intensely as is done in the LGMU. In another order of things, and following that liberalizing and deregulation path, the LGMU establishes the principle of effectiveness in terms that foster regulatory competition among the different autonomous communities that, it seems logical to think, will tend to increasingly simplify the access and exercise requirements to economic activities, even suppressing them directly, if necessary. However, we must indicate, as we have already pointed out elsewhere, that this principle of efficiency, as established in the LGMU, has been annulled by the Constitutional Court. And all this is done without respecting the constitutional distribution of competences, that is, without taking into account that the autonomous communities, as their own political entities, have recognized exclusive, even regulatory, powers, that is, with the possibility of issuing laws through their Assemblies, which cannot be considered inferior to those of the State. In the use of these competences, and for their exercise to be full, the autonomous communities should be able to decide what means of administrative control they want to impose on economic operators, what are the general interests or compelling reasons that prevail in the face of these business freedoms and of profession and trade. In short, this Law, which is one more element of the “normative block of liberalization”, promotes the mutation that the freedom of business in our Constitution is suffering 45 . 45 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. 95.