They are the officials. The Supreme Court has dealt a severe legal blow to the First Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC). Through an order issued on June 1, 2026, the high court has accepted the complaint filed by the company Construcciones Dique del Este, S.A., immediately unblocking its appeal in a significant tax litigation involving the company regarding the occupation tax of the island docks.
Sources from the island’s legal sector indicate that, although this order does not prejudge the final decision on the merits of the tax dispute, the Supreme Court’s reprimand of the TSJC represents significant breathing space for corporations that operate and invest along the coastline of the archipelago in the face of bureaucratic hurdles and administrative overreach.
The conflict dates back to April 8, 2026, when the regional court based in Tenerife decreed the closure of the proceedings, declaring the construction company’s appeal ‘not prepared’. The TSJC justified its decision at the time by arguing that the company had made an ‘insufficient justification’ in establishing the objective appeal interest of the case, which is a formal requirement mandated by Article 89.2 of the Regulatory Law of Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (LJCA). The defense of the Canary-based company appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that their right to defense was being stifled.
Amendment to formal paralysis
The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, under the lead of Magistrate José Luis Requero Ibáñez, has disarmed the arguments of the Canary Chamber by characterizing its criteria as ‘excessively strict’. The Supreme Court confirms that the document submitted by the legal advisors of the Tenerife company far exceeded the minimum formal threshold required to access state justice.
‘The judgment of the lower court cannot be shared, as it has been excessively strict regarding compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 89 LJCA. There is sufficient relevance exhibited in the document concerning the infractions that are being alleged,’ the judicial resolution clearly states.
The high court emphasizes that the company based its strategy on three specific instances of appeal interest and provided a prior judgment with a doctrine ‘potentially contradictory’ to that applied in the islands. This opens the door for the Supreme Court to ‘refine, complement, or reinforce’ the rules governing occupation fees in the public port domain, rendering the appeal a matter of high doctrinal interest.
Shift regarding previous litigations
The ruling of the Supreme Court, co-signed along with Requero Ibáñez by Magistrates Pablo Lucas Murillo de la Cueva, Ángeles Huet, Sandra María González de Lara, and Pilar Cancer, also clarifies why this appeal succeeds in contrast to a previous setback experienced by the same company (complaint appeal 74/2026). In this latter case, the company did structure its allegations correctly and justified the economic and legal impact of the ruling. The acceptance of the complaint necessitates the TSJC to immediately reactivate the proceeding, summon the parties, and send the files to Madrid.
