Madrid's High Court has refused an immediate eviction from Sol. The housing protest camp remains outside the regional government headquarters while the state responds through the ordinary legal procedure.
The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid gave the Delegación del Gobierno until 9:00 on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, to respond to the request to remove the camp from Puerta del Sol. The court acknowledged the urgency but refused to decide without hearing the state administration. The case now follows the ordinary legal procedure.
The ruling does not settle whether the camp exceeds the limits of the right of assembly. It rejects the medida cautelarísima, a request decided without hearing the other side, and opens a separate case for the ordinary processing of the eviction demand. The Abogacía del Estado will submit the written response on behalf of the Delegación del Gobierno under the court's procedural timetable.
The camp was reportedly set up in central Madrid on 27 September 2026 as part of a protest linked to Spain’s housing crisis. No appeal can be filed against this resolution.
The judges accepted that circumstances of special urgency existed. They still found it impossible to assess the legal requirements for such an exceptional measure without hearing the Administración General del Estado. The Comunidad de Madrid accuses the Delegación del Gobierno of failing to act.
The right of assembly sits at the centre of the decision. The court warned that an eviction through this route could have irreversible consequences and recalled that any intervention must respect proportionality. In the court's reasoning, dissolving a gathering is a last resort.
Independent reports said the number of people at the protest reached several hundred at one point, with one estimate putting attendance at around 1,000. The camp remained in the square after the court declined to order an immediate police removal.
The ruling has a practical consequence. If people in the camp refuse to leave after a verbal order, police may have to use physical force. The judges treated that possibility as a reason to avoid an immediate decision before hearing the state administration.
The regional government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso took the case to court after she announced the move in the Asamblea on 1 October. A 48-hour ultimatum to the state authorities came before the filing. The Comunidad says the Delegación del Gobierno has refused to remove the camp. It argues that the gathering affects the operation of the Real Casa de Correos, along with commercial and tourist activity around Sol.
RTVE reported that the regional government presented the litigation as a response to what it described as inaction by the state administration. Its complaints also include alleged damage to the façade and the statue of the Oso y el Madroño. The Comunidad has raised hygiene problems and concerns about events planned for 12 October.
The case first reached a judge in the administrative courts. That judge declared herself incompetent on Friday and transferred the matter to the TSJM.
The Delegación del Gobierno has defended the right of assembly. It says any intervention should be gradual and proportionate, with dissolution as a last resort. The dispute concerns more than the tents: it also concerns which authority must act and under what conditions, as well as how the constitutional right to protest is balanced against public-order and operational concerns.
The camp is part of the recent story of Sol. An earlier account of its expansion is available in this earlier report. That report described the arrival of more than 1,200 tents after Maricarmen's eviction.
For now, the regional government has not obtained the rapid eviction it requested. The tents can remain while the Delegación del Gobierno presents its case.
The court has not endorsed the camp or rejected the Comunidad's complaints. It has required the authorities to address the rights involved and the possible use of force before ordering any removal. The Delegación del Gobierno's public position is that urgency alone does not justify bypassing the administration whose inaction is being challenged.
