The Foundation Ports of Las Palmas is in a critically defenseless legal situation following the failure to approve its annual accounts for the fiscal year 2025. The blockage in the governing body, resulting from internal disagreements among its trustees and Ports of the State, has left the entity in a situation of accounting vacancy that, in the eyes of any jurist specialized in foundational law, constitutes an open invitation to judicial intervention. The lack of financial transparency, aggravated by the formal warning from Ports of the State, invalidates the legitimacy of the management to continue operating as a manager of public funds.
From a procedural standpoint, the absence of approved annual accounts in the corresponding registry is an irremediable irregularity. Spanish regulation is categorical: transparency and accountability are sine qua non requirements for a foundation to maintain its full legal personality. By failing to comply with this obligation, the board of trustees has lost its legal armor. In current administrative law, any interested party—from creditors to related public institutions—has the necessary standing to request dissolution before the Foundation Protectorate or the competent judicial authority. A majority within the board of trustees is not necessary to initiate this process; it is enough to report a blatant irregularity compromising the public interest.
The severity of the scenario intensifies considering that the trustees have received a direct warning from Ports of the State regarding their personal liability. This warning is not a recommendation, but a prior notice of enforcement. If the administrators persist in keeping alive a structure that lacks accounting support, they expose themselves to having the corporate veil lifted in a potential civil liability process. Jurisprudence is clear on this matter: the failure to present accounts in an entity under public oversight denotes disloyal management. The trustees who authorize expenses without subjecting their accounts to legal scrutiny are operating outside the framework of the Foundations Law, risking their private assets in the face of any claims.
The ‘social agenda’ that the foundation attempts to maintain as a shield is, from the tribunal’s perspective, a distraction strategy. Charitable activity does not validate the absence of fiscal control. If resources continue to be mobilized while the accounting books are blank, we are faced with a management of funds without legitimacy. This situation invites the Protectorate to act ex officio or at the request of any interested third party. The administrative paralysis has left the foundation without legal arguments to protect itself from forced liquidation. The structure has ceased to be a vehicle for public utility and has turned into a legal liability for its members.
