The Justice rejects the immediate eviction of the Sol camp.

Urgent interim measures in the Spanish contentious-administrative jurisdiction are an exceptional type of precautionary measures provided for in the Law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (LJCA), which allows the judge to adopt the measure without previously hearing the defendant Administration when the time of that hearing would cause the legitimate purpose of the appeal to be lost. The basic regime is in articles 129 and following, and specifically in article 135 LJCA.

1. Basic requirements

Before entering the "urgent" procedure, it is necessary to recall the general requirements of any precautionary measure:

• Fumus boni iuris: reasonable appearance of good right. It is not a definitive judgment, but the appeal cannot be manifestly unfounded or abusive.
• Periculum in mora: risk that, if the measure is not adopted immediately, the future judgment loses effectiveness (irreparable or very difficult to repair damage).
• Proportionality and balancing of interests: the judge must assess the public interest and the particular interests affected by the measure, avoiding that the precautionary measure causes greater harm than it intends to prevent.
• Connection with the object of the appeal: the measure must be coherent with the main claim (usually, to suspend or modulate the effectiveness of the challenged act or provision).

2. Specific requirements of urgent measures (art. 135 LJCA)

Urgent measures are an emergency route within precautionary measures. They require, in addition to the above:

• Extreme urgency: it must be concretely justified that waiting to hear the Administration (even with a short deadline) would make the precautionary protection useless. It is not enough to allege a simple future economic harm.
• Express request: the claimant must expressly request that the measure be adopted without prior hearing, explaining why the circumstances of art. 135 LJCA are met.
• Reinforced reasoning: the petition must develop in some detail the appearance of good right and, above all, the imminent and irreparable risk.

3. Timing and form of the request

The request for urgent interim measures can be made:

• In the very filing or complaint of the contentious-administrative appeal, including an "otrosí" in which the precautionary measure is requested and the urgency is argued so that it is adopted without hearing.
• In a subsequent petition, once the process has started, if supervening circumstances arise that justify the urgency (for example, immediate start of works, imminent execution of a sanction, etc.).

The petition must:

• Precisely identify the challenged act or provision.
• Specify the requested measure (usually, total or partial suspension of effectiveness, or adoption of a positive measure to do or not do something).
• Set out the facts that justify the urgency and the irreparable harm.
• Provide the available supporting documentation (reports, communications, acts of imminent execution, etc.).

4. Processing before the jurisdictional body

Upon receipt of the request, the contentious-administrative body may:

• Decide directly on the measure, without hearing the Administration, if it appreciates the required extreme urgency. In practice, an order granting or denying the urgent measure is issued within a very short period (sometimes within 24–48 hours, although the law does not set specific hours, but the greatest possible speed).
• Reject the urgent route if it considers that the urgency is not justified, and process the request as an ordinary precautionary measure, giving the Administration a hearing for the legal period (usually 10 days) before deciding.

When the urgent measure is granted (for example, the act is immediately suspended), the LJCA imposes a second phase:

• The judge must give hearing to the Administration and other affected parties so that they may make allegations about maintaining, modifying, or lifting the measure.
• After that hearing, the jurisdictional body issues a new order confirming, lifting, or adjusting the measure, now with adversarial proceedings.

5. Guarantees and appeals

When deciding on the measure (urgent or ordinary), the judge may require the provision of a bond or security from the applicant if deemed necessary to cover possible damages that the precautionary measure might cause to the Administration or third parties, although in contentious-administrative matters this is applied cautiously given the citizen's position vis-à-vis the Administration.

The order that grants or denies urgent interim measures is appealable (or subject to reconsideration, depending on the case and the body) under the terms of the LJCA. The appeal does not usually suspend the effectiveness of the precautionary decision by itself, unless the court expressly orders it.

6. Practical key ideas

• Urgent measures are exceptional and granted restrictively.
• The core of success lies in precisely demonstrating the irreparable and imminent harm that makes waiting for the Administration's hearing useless.
• Even when granted without hearing, the measure will always be reviewed with adversarial proceedings shortly thereafter, so it is advisable to prepare a solid argument for that second phase.

In the Community of Madrid, which is a single-province community, the Government delegate concentrates both the functions proper to a delegate in the autonomous community and, in the absence of a subdelegate, those that Law 40/2015 assigns to subdelegates in each province. In matters of public order and citizen security, this translates into a central position in the direction of the State Security Forces and Corps and in coordination with autonomous and local authorities.

General framework of powers

According to Law 40/2015, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector, the Government delegate:

• Represents the Government of the Nation in the territory of the Community of Madrid and directs and supervises the General State Administration in that area, coordinating it with the autonomous administration and local entities.
• Exercises competencies systematized in five blocks: direction and coordination of the state administration, information about the Government's action, coordination and collaboration with other administrations, control of legality, and development of public policies.

Within this general scheme, citizen security and public order appear expressly as a specific functional core.

Direction of the State Security Forces and Corps

Law 40/2015 explicitly establishes that:

• It corresponds to the Government delegates to "protect the free exercise of rights and freedoms and guarantee citizen security", through the Government subdelegates and the State Security Forces and Corps.
• The headship of the State Security Forces and Corps in the territorial scope of the autonomous community lies with the Government delegate, who exercises the state competencies in this matter under the functional dependence of the Ministry of the Interior.

Organic Law 2/1986, on Security Forces and Corps, frames this function by stating that public security is an exclusive competence of the State and that its maintenance corresponds to the Government of the Nation, without prejudice to the participation of autonomous communities and local corporations through their police. Reciprocal coordination among all these bodies is a basic principle, articulated through security bodies and boards.

Particularities of Madrid as a single-province community

Law 40/2015 foresees that in single-province autonomous communities where there is no Government subdelegate, the delegate also assumes the competencies that the law assigns to subdelegates in the provinces. Among these additional competencies are:

• Guaranteeing citizen security in the province, directing the State Security Forces and Corps in that area.
• Directing and coordinating civil protection in the provincial scope, which includes managing situations of serious risk, catastrophe, or public calamity from the civil perspective.
• Maintaining and structuring relations of cooperation and coordination with the Community of Madrid and with municipalities, particularly the Madrid City Council, both for ordinary security and for specific devices (major events, demonstrations, preventive devices, etc.).

Public order, assemblies, and coordination with autonomous and local police

Based on Organic Law 2/1986 and specific legislation on citizen security, the Government delegate in Madrid:

• Acts as the state reference authority in public order in the community, promoting the devices in which the National Police and Civil Guard intervene, and coordinating their actions with the Madrid Municipal Police and local police forces of other municipalities through security boards and other cooperation mechanisms.
• Participates in the application of measures provided in citizen security legislation against actions that seriously disturb public order, channeling instructions from the Ministry of the Interior and ensuring their execution by the State Security Forces and Corps.
• Regarding assemblies and demonstrations in public spaces, acts as the state governmental authority competent to guarantee the balance between the exercise of the right of assembly and the maintenance of public order and citizen security, in coordination with Interior and local authorities.

Exceptional situations: states of alarm, exception, and siege

Organic Law 4/1981, on states of alarm, exception, and siege, provides that, once one of these states is declared:

• All civil authorities of the Public Administration of the affected territory, as well as autonomous and local police forces, are under the direct orders of the competent authority (the Government or, where appropriate, the president of the autonomous community) to the extent necessary for the protection of persons, goods, and places.
• In this context, the Government delegate in Madrid acts as a key liaison and execution piece of the central Government's decisions in the territory, channeling orders to civil authorities and the State Security Forces and Corps.

In summary, in the Community of Madrid the Government delegate concentrates the representation of the central Executive, the territorial headship of the State Security Forces and Corps, the direction of state civil protection, and operational coordination with the Community of Madrid and municipalities, being the main state official responsible for maintaining public order and citizen security in the territory.

Organic Law 9/1983, regulating the right of assembly, sets a series of specific requirements for assemblies and demonstrations in places of public transit and public spaces. The objective is to reconcile this fundamental right with the preservation of public order and the safety of persons and property, without turning it into a system of prior authorization.

1. Nature of the right and basic limits

The right of assembly (art. 1) is recognized as a right to peaceful and unarmed assembly. This implies:

• The assembly or demonstration must be peaceful, without violence or incitement to it.
• It must be unarmed: the presence of weapons or objects that could be used as such conflicts with the very definition of the right.
• No prior authorization is required (art. 2.1), but a prior communication is required in the case of assemblies in places of public transit and demonstrations.

2. Persons who may convene and responsibility

Art. 3 requires that assemblies subject to the Law may only be promoted by persons in full exercise of their civil rights. Additionally:

• Organizers are responsible for the good order of the assembly or demonstration and must adopt the necessary measures for its proper development (art. 3.2).
• Participants are directly liable for damages they cause to third parties, and organizers are secondarily liable, unless they prove they have taken all reasonable means to prevent them (art. 3.3).

3. Obligation of prior communication and deadlines

Art. 8 regulates the prior communication to the government authority (of the State or the autonomous community with security competencies):

• It must be communicated in writing by the organizers or promoters.
• General deadline: with a minimum advance of 10 calendar days and a maximum of 30 days before the scheduled date.
• If the organizers are legal persons, the communication is made by their representative.
• In case of "extraordinary and serious causes" justifying urgency, communication may be made with a minimum advance of 24 hours.

4. Mandatory content of the communication

Art. 9 details the information that the communication letter must contain:

• Identification of the organizers: name, surname, address, and official identification document. If they are legal persons, also name, nature, and address.
• Place, date, time, and expected duration of the assembly or demonstration.
• Purpose of it (main purpose, reason).
• Projected itinerary, when it is planned to circulate through public roads.
• Security measures planned by the organizers or requested from the government authority.

The government authority must communicate this data to the affected city council, so that it issues a report within 24 hours on technical aspects of the route (concurrence with other events, condition of places, security conditions, etc.). That report is non-binding and, if it does not arrive on time, it is considered favorable.

5. Possibility of prohibition or modification

Art. 10 allows the government authority to:

• Prohibit the assembly or demonstration, or
• Propose modification of date, place, duration, or itinerary,

when there are founded reasons to foresee "disturbances of public order with danger to persons or property." The resolution:

• Must be reasoned (explaining why that risk is appreciated).
• Must be notified within a maximum period of 72 hours from the communication submission.
• May be appealed by the organizers before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction through the special procedure for protection of fundamental rights (art. 11).

6. Suspension, dissolution, and use of uniforms

Art. 5 empowers the government authority to suspend or dissolve assemblies and demonstrations in progress when:

• They are unlawful according to criminal laws.
• Disturbances of public order occur with danger to persons or property.
• Use of paramilitary uniforms by attendees.
• They are organized by members of the Armed Forces or Civil Guard infringing their specific laws.

The law also provides that the government authority must, as a general rule, protect lawful assemblies and demonstrations against those who try to prevent or disturb them (art. 2.2), thus reinforcing the guarantee nature of the system.

7. Competent authority in public spaces

Finally, art. 12 clarifies that, for these purposes, the government authority is considered both the bodies of the General State Administration and those of the autonomous communities with competencies in protection of persons and property and maintenance of citizen security. These authorities receive the communication, assess the risk to public order, and, if applicable, agree on prohibitions, modifications, or dissolutions.

In summary, Organic Law 9/1983 establishes a regime of prior communication, not authorization, with set deadlines and contents, in which assembly in public spaces is the rule and prohibition or modification is a strictly linked exception to serious and founded risks to public order and security.