The Administrative Law and Maritime and Transport Law Sections of the Madrid Bar Association met to examine the text of the draft Sustainable Mobility Law.
From the perspective of lawyers, opinions are divided, although they agree that the law presents several challenges.
Alberto Dorrego de Carlos, president of the Administrative Law Section and partner at Eversheds Sutherland, is the first to point out that it is plagued by technical flaws.
In his speech, he described it as a text with good intentions, but with many mandates whose failure to comply does not entail tangible consequences.
The Sustainable Mobility Law, according to him, is too programmatic, which calls into question its effectiveness in driving true transformation of the sector.
Pablo Mayor, a state lawyer, agrees with this criticism, stressing that the text has limited real content.
He considers it a “planning law” that creates coordination bodies without establishing minimum guidelines for their operation.
“It is a law that calls for regulatory development without defining the bases,” says Mayor.
It also warns that it is especially vague in its ability to coordinate between autonomous communities, which could make its implementation more complex.
As for financing, experts agree that the chapter devoted to the subject leaves much to be desired.
Dorrego points out that, although urban infrastructure is addressed, it does not extend to metropolitan areas or long-distance transport, which limits its ambition.
Mayor insists that funding must be comprehensive for the entire transport system and not limited to urban transport.
The concession system, another pillar of the law, is also a point of analysis.
Dorrego points out that the text introduces a “depublicisation” of regular road passenger transport, by allowing some routes to cease being considered public services and become subject to free competition.
However, the lawyer warns that this will not necessarily increase attendance.
“In other countries that have liberalised their system, the trend has been concentration and the emergence of oligarchies,” he says.
Mayor, for his part, points out that the concession system should be better integrated, in a network, to avoid conflicts between state and regional lines.
In his opinion, the law is poorly drafted in this regard, since Spain already has greater free competition than in other countries.
The text therefore only regulates non-exclusivity, which does not represent significant progress.
Fernando Cascales, former director general of Railways and Transport, presents a different view, defending the need for a well-managed network.
Although he acknowledges that the text lacks regulation in key aspects, such as the creation of a second operator in the concession system, he highlights the importance of network management and its public profitability.
“The network map is necessary, but the important thing is how it is managed,” says Cascales.
The debate also extends to intermediary platforms.
Dorrego clarifies that European regulations do not require the modification of the concession system or cabotage for international operators.
Mayor reaffirms that foreign operators must comply with Spanish legislation if they want to access the market.
This point is key in a European context where restrictions and opportunities for access to national markets are debated.
The law also raises concerns about the legal security of operators.
Dorrego criticises the system of expired concessions, in particular the provision that prohibits the same contractor from continuing to operate after an 18-month extension without a new tender.
“Eliminating the continuity of the contractors after a period of extension generates legal uncertainty,” he says.
Mayor agrees that expiration dates must be respected, but criticises the fact that the law avoids pointing out the Administration as responsible for this precarious situation.
According to Mayor, if deadlines are not met, the Administration should be to blame and not the operator.
He also questions the lack of guarantees for tendering processes, following several rulings in Andalusia that did not allow the special appeal in contracting matters, which in his opinion could create a legal vacuum.
Cascales shares the criticism regarding legal certainty and the need to establish a new public procurement regime comparable with other European countries.
” The contracting system needs to be updated , especially if we are going to have a concession map that includes several operators,” he says.
What is the status of the Law?
In the legislative context, the vote on 26 September gave the green light to the continuation of the project , despite the rejection of the amendment as a whole presented by the Popular Party.
However, critics see a lack of concrete objectives in the law, both in terms of decarbonisation and the promotion of electromobility, which has raised concerns among groups such as Esquerra Republicana, Sumar and Bildu.
Carlos Bravo, an environmental consultant, sums up the situation: “The law lacks clear goals for reducing CO2 and the transition to sustainable mobility.”
Furthermore, the inclusion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel in maritime transport generates rejection, as it is considered contradictory to decarbonisation objectives.
As for the future of the law, the next step is the period for submitting partial amendments.
“The government will have to accept several amendments if it wants to improve the law from an environmental perspective,” says Bravo, who also points out that the real test will be in the Senate, where the Popular Party has a majority.
The future of the Sustainable Mobility Law remains up in the air, but experts stress that, while the project has potential, it still has important areas for improvement before its final approval.
