Sustainable Tourism Law

COMPETITION LAW VERSUS SPATIAL PLANNING 321 on behalf of economic agents could be controlled by the governmental power through other ex-ante or ex-post intervention mechanisms, besides an authorization. Therefore, overriding reasons of public interest would justify the requirement of ex-ante intervention mechanisms like the submission of a sworn statement or a communication, which is in line with that which is stipulated in sections 2-4 of article 17 of Law 20/2013. The court also found that this is consistent with the standard of the Spanish government to promote the economic objective of reducing the administrative burdens necessary to access and carry out an economic activity without undermining interests that should be protected, as this standard allows for both the establishment of various ex-ante control mechanisms (such as a sworn statement or a communication) and the establishment of conditions for carrying out an economic activity, compliance with which can be monitored at a later time. Consequently, the court dismissed the challenge to section 1 of art. 17 of Law 20/2013. Because of this, limiting requirements, like those introduced by relevant authorities in matters of tourism, including requiring individual gas, water or electricity meters; the need for owners’ boards in apartment blocks to come to an agreement; limiting sworn statements to five years in multi-family buildings; and prohibiting rentals in dwellings that are less than five years old are effective measures for restricting the practice and development of the activity. Whether these restrictive measures infringe upon the principle of necessity and proportionality derived from the guarantee of market unity must be evaluated according to whether or not they uphold one of the overriding reasons of public interest that can be invoked (consumer safety, the fight against fraud, the protection of the natural and urban environments, and the objectives of social and cultural policies such as the right to housing that is free from nuisances, the right to decent housing, sustainable urban development, the social function of the property, and the harmonious coexistence of tourists and residents alike) and whether the restrictive measure is proportional to the reason. Several court statements and rulings have addressed this issue. First, ruling 292/2016 of 31 May of the High Court of Justice of Madrid declared null and void the prohibition of vacation rentals for less than five days, which was stipulated in Decree 79/2014 of 10 July on the regulation of vacation rentals and the use of residences for tourism purposes in the Community of Madrid. This court based their reasoning on the fact that the matter concerned a time