Spanish Coastal Law

The Spanish Coastal Law is what regulates the determination, protection, use and policy of the maritime-terrestrial public domain and especially of the maritime shore.

Until 2013, Law 22/1988, of July 28, on Coasts has been in force, which repealed the Coastal Law of April 26, 1969, and was developed in the Regulation of the Coastal Law, approved in Royal Decree 1471/1989 of December 1, 1989. This law was modified by Law 2/2013, of May 29, on the protection and sustainable use of the coastline and modification of Law 22/1988, of July 28, on Coasts, in force.

The effective application of the 1988 Law, especially in its coastal protection aspect, did not occur in most of the territory, as the European Union points out in the Auken Report. The new modification of 2013 softens the levels of protection of the maritime shore in favor of occupation and economic activities, lowering the protection easement from 100 to 20 meters. The modifications introduced by the new Law 2/2013, of May 29, on the protection and sustainable use of the coastline, of Coasts will allow the regularization of 12,800 homes located in public domain, which the previous law considered illegal and had to be demolished. In addition, 140,000 homes will be able to benefit from the construction amnesty.

On September 17, 2013, the European Parliament approved a new resolution on the 1988 Coastal Law and the modification of the 2013 Coastal Law, urging the Spanish government to fairly compensate the legitimate owners expropriated or demolished by the Coastal Law. The European Parliament has approved in its resolution that the Concession does not represent any compensation for the loss of properties, but has urged that the State compensate fairly, paying at market value for the expropriations carried out due to the application of the Law of Coasts. It also declares that the legal uncertainty has not been resolved and has asked the European Commission for an opinion on the European directives and laws that it violates.

Objectives of the law

After the meeting of the Council of Ministers chaired by Mariano Rajoy on October 5, 2012, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Environment Miguel Arias Cañete presented the bill that modifies the Coastal Law of 1988 and argued that it was It was necessary to change the previous law because it had created "legal uncertainty" and a bad image of Spain abroad, because there were foreigners among those affected by the 1988 rule, according to which, starting in 2018, houses built on the Public Domain Maritime-Terrestrial would begin to pass into the hands of the State to be demolished.

The 1988 law, modified by the 2013 law, aims to determine, protect, use and maintain the maritime-terrestrial public domain, and especially the seashore. It obliges the public administration to pursue the following purposes:

• Execute the delinde of the maritime-terrestrial public domain, and ensure the integrity and proper preservation of it, taking, as appropriate, the necessary protection and restoration measures.
• Guarantee the public use of the sea, its shoreline and the rest of the maritime-terrestrial public domain, with no exceptions other than those derived from duly justified reasons of public interest.
• To regulate the rational use of these goods in terms consistent with their nature, their ends and with respect for the landscape, the environment and the historical heritage.
• To achieve and maintain an adequate level of quality of the waters and the seashore.

Demarcation of the maritime-terrestrial public domain

The law establishes the need to demarcate the maritime-terrestrial public domain, that is, establish a line that determines the limit between the land that belongs to the sea and the beaches, and that is public in nature; and the interior land, susceptible to belonging and being managed by individuals. The consideration of public ownership of the sea and beaches does not emanate from this law, but is recognized in the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

The implementation of this demarcation corresponds to the provincial delegations of the General Directorate of Sustainability of the Coast and the Sea, dependent on the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment. The demarcation can be initiated ex officio or at the request of any interested party, but it does not have to be carried out if no one requests it. This implies that not all of the coastline is demarcated, with the percentage of completed demarcation being very different depending on the area. Sometimes, the demarcation can be updated, which entails elaboration from the beginning from the demarcation process.

As a public domain, the land delimited in the demarcation made cannot be occupied without authorization. Occupation is only allowed for those elements of public interest that, due to their nature, cannot have another occupation, as is the case of ports.

Easements

In addition to the area that belongs to the public domain, the law establishes that the land immediately on the shore of the sea that is not part of the public domain is affected by a series of easements. Normally the areas affected by these easements form strips parallel to the sea shore.

Protective easement

It is the largest and its job is to provide protection to the coast. In general, it falls on a strip of 100 meters measured inland from the inner limit of the sea shore, although this extension can be extended in certain cases up to 200 meters and is reduced to 20 meters in lands already classified as urban land. when the law came into force.

There are numerous actions prohibited in this area: erecting a fence or any type of enclosure, constructing buildings intended for residence or habitation, constructing or modifying interurban roads, laying high voltage lines, dumping waste, advertising, or activities that involve the exploitation of aggregate deposits. Some activities may be authorized for duly accredited reasons of public utility.

Some uses are allowed without authorization, such as cultivation or open sports facilities.

Transit easement

Its objective is to allow the free movement of citizens along the coast. It falls on a strip of 6 meters, measured inland from the inner limit of the sea shore, although in places with difficult or dangerous transit this width may be expanded as necessary, up to a maximum of 20 meters.

This area must be left permanently open for public pedestrian passage and for surveillance and rescue vehicles, except in specially protected spaces.

Sea access easement

Unlike the previous ones, it is not configured as a strip parallel to the sea, but rather several points are established along the coast to guarantee free public access to the sea. In urban and developable areas, pedestrian accesses must be spaced a maximum of 200 meters apart, and road accesses must be spaced a maximum of 500 meters apart.

The easement falls on the lands adjacent or contiguous to the maritime-terrestrial public domain, in the length and width demanded by the nature and purpose of the access. Its size must be that necessary to guarantee its function, and access to the sea will not be allowed to be interrupted if alternative access with the same efficiency is not provided. When plans and regulations for territorial and urban planning are drawn up, sufficient access to the sea and parking spaces must be considered, outside the maritime-terrestrial public domain.

Controversies regarding its application

The application of the coastal law has been controversial since its entry into force, especially with respect to construction on the coast, both in relation to existing constructions on the coast before its entry into force and to made later.

Existing constructions and accusations of retroactivity

In the case of already existing constructions, if the maritime-terrestrial public domain was not previously clearly indicated, it may happen that a construction that was previously considered private becomes in the public domain when the demarcation is made. The criterion applied by both the law and the public administration when applying it is that this does not imply an expropriation or confiscation, since the sea and beaches have always been considered part of the public domain, and the realization of the demarcation only represents the discovery that the constructions were in the public domain from the moment they were built. Since they were built in the public domain, their owners do not have the right to compensation, although they are given a period of 30 years, extendable for another 30, to enjoy the construction.

This interpretation has been described on many occasions as retroactive, since owners who had properties registered in their name discovered that their possession was in the public domain due to the application of the law. In 1991 the Supreme Court considered correct the interpretation that there is no retroactivity, and that the affected constructions must pass into the public domain.

Due to the great economic damage caused by the loss of a possession in favor of the public domain, a fairly significant number of those affected have taken legal action defending their right to ownership of their possession. In a dispute of this type, in addition to the interpretation of the law, it is usually assessed whether the demarcation has been correctly carried out, or whether it should have been carried out leaving the affected possession outside the public domain. In general, the legal actions of those affected have very little success, being resolved in favor of the public administration in 98% of the cases.

Effectiveness after approval

The application of the law on constructions carried out after its entry into force, and on its application to the protection of the coasts, also presents a high level of controversy.

The application of the law has been criticized by both environmental organizations and the European Union, for example in the Auken Report, due to the lack of effectiveness in its application. The most frequent accusation is that the law has proven to be insufficient when it comes to protecting the coast from massive urbanization. It has also been accused of being excessively complicated and of lack of coordination between the administrations that have to apply it.