The Constitutional Court has maintained the suspension of two basic provisions of the Valencian law on coastal protection, deepening the legal standoff between the Spanish government and the Generalitat. The decision affects traditional coastal settlements and limits regional efforts to shield them from state coastal-boundary measures. The law, formally identified as Law 3/2025 of Les Corts Valencianes, was dated 22 May 2025.
The dispute centers on Article 17 and the law’s first final provision, which establish a structure for protecting settlements of special ethnological value and traditional coastal nuclei. Article 17 covers buildings used for housing or commerce, as well as those tied to traditional economic activity, when they carry cultural or ethnological significance rooted in local history. The Spanish Government’s constitutional challenge also concerned the fourth additional provision. In its suspension decision, the Court kept the provisions establishing the ethnological-settlement mechanism suspended while lifting the suspension of the provision allowing the Generalitat to compile an inventory.
The Court’s jurisdictional distinction is basic: regional authorities may identify and protect cultural and historical heritage, but those measures cannot limit the State’s powers over assets forming part of the public maritime-terrestrial area. Article 17 and the first final provision are unconstitutional insofar as they apply to such public-area assets; they may remain applicable elsewhere on the coast where they do not impair state powers. The Court’s reasoning separates regional heritage protection from measures that could obstruct the State’s authority to manage public coastal land and protect or recover it.
The fourth additional provision gives the Valencian government an administrative tool to inventory traditional coastal settlements and ask the central government to consider changes to coastal boundaries or the legal status of buildings. The inventory does not itself alter a boundary or override state authority. The Court’s decision to lift the suspension of this provision so does not restore the separate mechanism intended to protect ethnological settlements against boundary changes. Many of the settlements discussed in the dispute date back to concessions from the 1930s and 1940s and face expiration under current law.
The Constitutional Court’s suspension decision followed a challenge filed by the President of the Government and appeals by Les Corts Valencianes and the Generalitat. Approved in May 2025 with support from the Partido Popular and Vox, the law was presented as a means of protecting property owners facing expropriation or reclassification under Spain’s Coastal Law. Parliamentary debate focused on settlements and property owners in places including Cabanes, Tavernes, Guardamar del Segura and Dénia.
The Spanish Government argued that the contested provisions could undermine the national structure for coastal protection. The State Attorney cited Supreme Court jurisprudence on the State’s exclusive competence over coastal-boundary demarcation and the declassification of public maritime land. The government also warned that lifting the suspension could create legal situations that would be difficult to reverse and risk irreversible environmental harm.
Playa de Babilonia in Guardamar del Segura illustrates the dispute’s local impact. The settlement is part of the Natura 2000 network, and state authorities had moved to demolish buildings after administrative concessions expired. The National Court and Supreme Court upheld those actions. The Generalitat, for its part, maintained that its law enabled steps dependent on state decisions rather than directly exercising powers reserved to the State.
A report from the Directorate General for the Coast and the Sea noted that, after the Valencian law took effect, the Generalitat imposed protective measures on the Babilonia enclave and notified the Ministry for Ecological Transition of its intention to declare the area a nucleus of special ethnological value. Planned demolitions were so delayed, while environmental degradation continued and complicated natural recovery efforts.
In assessing the suspension, the Constitutional Court said its immediate task was to consider the provisions’ effects while the constitutional dispute proceeded, rather than decide the challenge’s substance at that stage. It found that Article 17 had already affected state-led coastal protection and regeneration efforts while environmental deterioration persisted. Separately, the Court’s jurisdictional reasoning makes clear that the Generalitat may protect heritage but cannot encroach on the State’s authority over the public maritime-terrestrial area.
Guardamar del Segura Mayor José Luis Sáez welcomed the ruling and called for action concerning demolitions. The Generalitat has said the decision does not invalidate the entire Valencian coastal law and that it will examine legal avenues to protect traditional settlements. President Juanfran Pérez Llorca has maintained that responsibility for protecting settlements within the state public area lies with the State. The regional government says the rest of the statute remains in force and can continue to be developed within the limits set by the Court.
Valencia’s efforts to balance heritage protection with national environmental policy reflect broader tensions in regional initiatives. The region has also attracted international attention for economic and cultural projects, including the recent filming of a major Disney production in Alicante, which brought impressive investment to the area, as highlighted in this report on the economic impact of international productions in Valencia.
Spain’s coastal management involves overlapping regional and national responsibilities: autonomous communities can protect heritage values, while the State retains authority over the public maritime-terrestrial area. The Court’s decision narrows the conflict rather than eliminating it. Property owners and local governments now face a structure in which regional heritage recognition can continue outside state public land, while action affecting that land remains subject to the State’s powers.
