Sustainable Tourism Law

320 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW practice of economic activities, and it found that the list in article 3.11 of Law 17/2009 is sufficiently open in its terms to allow for the inclusion of other objectives that autonomous communities wish to pursue under their wide range of governmental competences. The court further stated that this is reflected in the fact that, in addition to the generic list of situations, there are other possible legitimate situations that are not included in the previously mentioned list. The law ensuring market unity not only regulates the application of the principles of necessity and proportionality via the establishment of various constraints on government intervention mechanisms in economic activities (authorizations, sworn statements or communications) so that they may be established by the relevant authorities (art. 17) but, as has been seen, it also regulates the principles of necessity and proportionality themselves, as it pertains to how these authorities act. When limits to accessing or practicing an economic activity are set up, as stipulated in article 17, or when demanding compliance with conditions to be able to carry out the activity, it is required for the limits and conditions to be justified (their necessity) by some overriding reason of public interest and that they be proportional (art. 5). Applied to the touristic commercialization of residences, this means that the legislator, acting in his/her power, in addition to being able to require a sworn statement in order to access this activity if it is justified with one of the overriding reasons of public interest, with motivation being provided for the requirement and ensuring its proportionality, can also require compliance with conditions for the practice of the activity. In other words, and according to the ruling by the Constitutional Court of 22 June 2017, pursuant to art. 5 of Law 20/2013, relevant authorities can impose requirements, obligations, bans, restrictions and limitations on the activity as long as they are proven to safeguard some overriding reason of public interest and are in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality. It is worth highlighting the clarification of this ruling when the constitutionality of art. 17.1 of Law 20/2013 was examined – the court found that if autonomous communities were restricted from using certain previously mentioned governmental instruments, e.g., requiring authorizations, it would not stop them from being able to impose – in the exercise of their powers and when developing their own policies – material requirements, designed to safeguard the legitimate objectives that surpass those listed in art 17.1, for accessing and carrying out economic activities. Thus, compliance with these requirements