Guadalhorce valley town wins in David versus Goliath battle with Junta de Andalucía in region's top court

Zoom

The TSJA rejected an appeal by the regional government, which was ordered to pay over 300,000 euros plus late payment interest and legal costs for improperly charging the water levy

Pilar R. Quirós

Malaga

Friday, 26 December 2025, 13:16

Justice is slow, but it eventually prevails, much to the dismay of some. This case - a David versus Goliath in terms of administrative litigation - that is, the Malaga province municipality of Álora against the Andalusian regional government, has had a favourable outcome for this town in the Guadalhorce valley, which, rather than remaining silent as others did, demanded the return of amounts wrongly charged to it for the water levy.

This charge occurred during 2011, 2012 and 2013, years in which the Junta de Andalucía billed Álora for the infrastructure improvement levy on water treatment, known as the ‘water canon’, even though the municipality was exempt from paying it because it was already paying the discharge levy. This exemption is one of those provided for by law, as recognised by the administrative litigation chamber of Malaga, part of the high court of justice of Andalucía (TSJA), in September 2022.

In the ruling, the TSJA ordered the Junta de Andalucía to repay the council of Álora 300,852.1 euros plus interest for late payment, and also ordered it to pay the costs. On behalf of the municipality, the appeal was brought by a partner of the law firm Montero Aramburu & Gómez-Villares Atencia, specifically by Nicolás Gómez-Villares Pérez-Muñoz.

The Andalusian government did not agree and appealed, but now the TSJA has rejected the appeal. This only means one thing: that the judgement is final, and that the regional authority will have to accept the ruling and pay the required financial outlay.

The court rules that it is the water charge from which those who paid the discharge charge in 2011, 2012 and 2013 are exempt

In its 2022 ruling, the TSJA said that, in order to resolve the matter, it is necessary to take into account that this concerns the infrastructure improvement fee for hydraulic works of interest to the autonomous community, from which those who pay the discharge fee are exempt. “Therefore, the exemption does not depend on the consumption carried out by the taxable person or service user (residents or other clients in Álora), but rather on the mere fact of the incompatibility arising from the simultaneous payment of the discharge fee and the improvement fee referred to in the appeal,” the court stated. The TSJA added, “There is no doubt that we are dealing with an exemption of an objective nature, which applies equally to all taxable persons to whom Álora town hall supplies water, and therefore the conditions for the exemption are met.”

No grounds for appeal

Now, the special regional cassation chamber has rejected the appeal for processing because the laws in question are not autonomous or emanate from the region, “norms to which the autonomous cassation appeal is constrained”. Secondly, because no relevant contradiction is identified for the purposes of the cassation appeal, since, according to the supreme court’s jurisprudence, “the cassation appeal is aimed at contradictory judgments within the same section of the same chamber”, and therefore must be dismissed. Finally, the contested judgment, the chamber states, does not establish “a doctrine gravely harmful to the general interests, or one that affects a wide range of cases”. The reality is that other municipalities were in the same situation and did not appeal, unlike Álora.

According to the lawyer Nicolás Gómez-Villares Pérez-Muñoz, “The process has been very long because it first began through administrative channels, where the regional government rejected the rectification request for self-assessment. It then proceeded as an administrative litigation before the TSJA against the regional government, and finally the ruling was upheld thanks to the special chamber for autonomous appeals, which agreed with us that there was no grounds for appeal and made it clear that the regional government’s collection was improper.”