The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has declared null and void the waste fee approved by the Madrid City Council under the mandate of mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida (PP) upon finding substantial defects in its processing. The decision, adopted by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber (Ninth Section), upholds the appeals filed by Más Madrid and the Spanish Association of Tax Advisors.
The ruling —still not fully published— represents a far-reaching legal setback for the Madrid city council , which had designed this fee as one of the pillars of its fiscal policy and of financing waste collection and treatment services.
The City Council now has a 30-day period to file an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court.
A ruling for procedural defects
Although the full text of the resolution has not been made public, the TSJM bases the annulment on substantial defects in the processing of the ordinance, which in legal terms implies a structural flaw that invalidates the entire norm from its origin.
This type of failures is usually linked to problems such as:
- shortcomings in the economic-financial report
- lack of accreditation of the real cost of the service
- violation of the principle of equivalence (when the fee approaches a disguised tax)
The key is that it is not a minor correction, but a defect that affects the very validity of the norm, which explains that the court has opted for its complete annulment.
Blow to municipal accounts
The waste fee was expected to generate around 300 million euros annually for the municipal coffers. Its annulment now introduces an element of uncertainty in the budgetary planning of the Madrid City Council.
In addition, the measure had generated strong social and administrative opposition, with more than 130,000 claims presented by taxpayers.
What will happen with the money already collected?
The great unknown is situated now in the economic effects of the ruling if this comes to be final.
If the nullity is definitively confirmed, taxpayers who have appealed or requested the refund of the fee will be able to recover what was paid through the procedure of undue payments. This would include both the principal amount and, where applicable, the late payment interest. It is the most probable scenario for the more than 130,000 claims already registered.
For those who have not appealed the refund of that fee is not automatic in all cases. It will depend on whether the settlements are final or not and on the review periods.
If the ruling becomes final and refunds become widespread, the City Council could face a multimillion-dollar impact, it would force to redo the ordinance according to the court's criteria and would open a new debate on the financing of the waste service in the capital.
And now, what?
The Madrid City Council, likely, will appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court, which could suspend the immediate practical effects of the ruling.
In parallel, the ruling obliges to rethink the model: drafting of a new ordinance, reinforcement of the economic justification and adaptation to the judicial doctrine on waste fees.
The TSJM's resolution is framed within a growing trend of the courts to rigorously examine the legality of municipal fees, especially regarding their proportionality and economic justification.
Key political and fiscal
The annulment of the garbage fee not only has legal consequences, but also political ones: it questions one of the main fiscal instruments of the municipal Government, reopens the debate on who and how urban services should be financed and places at the center the demand for technical rigor in the drafting of fiscal ordinances
Pending the full publication of the ruling, the case is already shaping up as one of the biggest recent judicial setbacks for the fiscal policy of the Madrid City Council.
What happens if the garbage fee has not yet been paid
The situation of taxpayers who have not yet paid the garbage fee will depend on whether the TSJM ruling becomes final. For now, and while the City Council can appeal before the Supreme Court, the fee remains enforceable, so non-payment can lead to surcharges and even enforcement proceedings.
However, if the nullity is definitively confirmed, the payment obligation would disappear, since the ordinance would be invalidated from its origin. In that scenario, the City Council could not claim the pending amounts.
In practice, this leaves taxpayers with two options: pay and claim later to avoid risks or wait for the final resolution assuming the possible opening of collection procedures.