The Supreme court has rejected an appeal from the Barcelona City Council in a ruling in which it establishes that the regulation that obliges place the effigy of Rey in the consistories it has the character of a basic norm and orders that in all municipalities “The symbol of the political form of the State is present” in a “preferred” place.
This is article 85.2 of the Organization and Functioning Regulations (ROF) of Local Entities approved by Royal Decree of November 28, 1986 which, according to the ruling issued by the Contentious Chamber of the high court, should be considered a “basic norm “that” concerns symbols of the State. ”
A norm that orders that “the symbol of the political form” of the State “be present in all municipalities” in a preferential place “located in the room where its plenary session meets. In this way it becomes visible” that the local power it exercises in coherence with that political form. ”
“It should not be forgotten that the municipalities, according to article 137 of the Constitution, are elements of the territorial organization of the State. Their autonomy, guaranteed by this and other constitutional precepts, finds its meaning within that organization,” the Supreme Court makes clear when rejecting an appeal from the Barcelona City Council.
The origin of the conflict is located in the Municipal Organic Regulation of Barcelona that approved in 2015 the plenary session of the corporation when he was already in charge of the consistory Ada Colau.
Its article 75.2, already declared void, indicated that “the representation of symbolic and institutional elements permanently present in the meeting room must respond to the unique historical and capital status of Barcelona, and to the democratic principles, religious neutrality and Catalan. ”
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, in response to an appeal from the Government Delegation, annulled it and now the Supreme Court has confirmed that decision.
The magistrates do not dispute that there may be a “municipal regulation” on this matter, but this It must be “complementary and respectful of state regulations”, and it cannot be displaced by municipal regulations.
They make it clear that, in this case, the Regulation “in no way diminishes” the powers of the Barcelona city council or its power of self-government and emphasizes that the rule declared null “did not contain this complementary regulation, but rather another one that was clearly non-compliant with article 85.2 of the ROF” .
The Supreme Court ruling is limited only to what is related to the King’s effigy and agrees with the State Bar, which understood that the municipal regulation violated the obligation imposed by the ROF and also by the Flag Law, in relation to the presence of the flag of Spain in the meeting room or plenary session.
The court also agrees with the private vote of a magistrate against the judgment of the Supreme Court, which stated that the norm should have the formal status of law, although it indicates that this affirmation would be “admissible at the present time but Article 85.2 of the Regulation is fruit of the normative historical moment in which it is approved and in coherence with the point of evolution in which the constitutional doctrine was found. It is these exceptional and already overcome circumstances that justify and make admissible that such a forecast is made in the ROF “.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.