The increase in mooring fees—endorsed by Las Palmas’ business association, which is represented on the Port Authority’s board through Fedeport (Boluda) and the Gran Canaria Chamber of Commerce (Sepcan, the service concessionaire)—and tensions with the dockworkers’ sector have raised alarm around Lake Geneva. But what has truly outraged the members of the Association des Artisans Boulangers de Genève is the legal escalation at the Port of Las Palmas against its subsidiary OPCSA, a move that has been very poorly received.
In the Swiss capital, they want to know who is coordinating the pressure campaign against a company whose top executive in Gran Canaria, Jan Novak, will mark a decade in the post in 2027: whether it follows a directive from the port authority’s president, Beatriz Calzada (CC), or stems from the management of its director, Francisco Trujillo. Several financial sources consulted by Canarymaritime point firmly to the public entity’s management. “It is the management,” said a source in the financial sector familiar with the Port of Las Palmas’ business who requested anonymity.
Two rulings against Calzada in 24 hours
The setback suffered by the Port Authority of Las Palmas at the National Court had an immediate impact in Switzerland. The Swiss shipping giant is seeking to assess the financial and operational impact at its headquarters of the litigation over the occupancy fee, at a time when the courts are confirming the full validity of the rulings issued by the Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal (TEAC) in favor of the terminal.
Throughout September 2026, the Seventh Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber dealt two consecutive blows to the port’s strategy, just 24 hours apart.
In Order 495/2026, dated September 2, and Order 521/2026, dated September 10, the court denied the precautionary suspension of the TEAC rulings that annulled the occupancy-fee assessments issued by the Port Authority and established a new depreciation criterion for facilities in determining the tax base.
The scenario being examined in Geneva involves a multimillion-euro dispute. The second of the National Court’s rulings (Appeal 846/2026) directly concerns the terminal concession and an assessment of €1.2 million. In that order, the chamber rejected the Port Authority’s arguments—which claimed there was a hypothetical risk that the money might not be collected in the future—and proceeded with the State Attorney’s Office’s request to verify the validity of the guarantees provided by the company. For MSC, this judicial backing confirms that the criterion established by the TEAC is fully enforceable while the substance of the case is being debated. What has caused anger, however, is the Las Palmas Port Authority’s request to freeze the deposited amount over a procedural issue.
The summons issued to OPCSA’s top executives reflects the strategic importance the shipping line attaches to the tax dispute at the Port of La Luz. After consolidating its two victories on precautionary measures without an award of costs at the National Court, the MSC-led company is seeking to protect its margins and unify its legal position against the public body’s attempts to reopen enforcement proceedings for assessments that the economic-administrative process declared null and void. The underlying question being raised in Switzerland is what exactly this type of measure against OPCSA is intended to achieve, and whether Las Palmas is fully aware of the country and institutional risk to which it is exposing the Canary Islands through decisions of this kind.
The article Mediterranean Shipping calls in OPCSA executives over pressure from Las Palmas Port Authority management was first published on canarymaritime.com.
