On August 17, 1930, a meeting of Spain’s main republican leaders was celebrated at the San Sebastian Casino where they agreed on a strategy to replace the monarchy Alfonso XIII for a republic in which autonomy is recognized, especially Catalonia.
In view of the “unanimity with which the various resolutions were adopted” (following the “official note” which was published in the press), the interpretations Pacto de San Sebastián there were differences between representatives of national parties and autonomists.
While for the former the agreement consisted in negotiating the status of autonomy in the courts, for the latter it was agreed to provide Catalonia with a federal regime.
The following year there was so much debate in the constitutional courts as to which of these interpretations was correct, that a sober chronicler remarked that the founding moment seemed to have been celebrated in the city, and that in Madrid it was only a matter of ratifying the decision in it.
Without comparing the two situations with the same possible comparison, I agreed with these republican discussions, taking into account the different interpretations made by the Spanish government and the framework adopted by Viernes de Dolores within the Commission for Bilateral Administrative Cooperation of the Estado-Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco.
Therefore, although one of the things that is important to understand, “which in no way changes the legal regime of the operation of AENA”, for others it means that “Euskadi will be able to participate in all decisions that affect major airports.”
Bilbao Airport.
Eph
In addition to the historical importance of the 96-year-old agreement, after this Holy Week we note another significant difference: while in the Republic the two sides compare its interpretations, now it seems that the word for your parish has fallen without having the heart to discuss it directly among those who deal with it.
Since we do not keep up with the acts of this Commission (most of what will be published when they have time will be “on the order of the day”), Here we do not know that we are counting on what was actually agreed.
With a little help, we will ask the Commission if it is appropriate to publish the statement on the BOE, and then we can read the agreed text for ourselves. However, the most we can do is legally interpret the different versions of the parts.
Let us go the position of Vasco’s government.
The letter included a speech at the meeting of the Bilateral Commission on the 27th at the Palacio de la Moncloa, in which I said that “Euskadi will be able to participate in the management of the three airports of the Vasco country”.
The following day, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that, in his understanding, he literally recognizes that the bilateral body that will be created is a “cooperation, coordination and management tool”. An important notice was found on the UK Government website detailing what this procedure entails, including the requirement to produce mandatory information relating to airport regulatory documents.
Create an entity made up of representatives of the state and autonomous governments with the capacity to manage three airports of general interest located in Vasco country is completely constitutional always that this entity is created in the source of law required by the Constitution and interpreted by the Constitutional Tribunal in constant jurisprudence (SSTC 68/1984, 204/2002, etc.).
“Since we are not interested in the actions of the Bilateral Committee of the State and Vasco Country, we do not know who is counting on what was really agreed upon.”
Given that article 149.1.20º reserves the exclusive authority of this type of airport to the stateAny autonomous participation in its management requires a decision by the state legislature through a transfer act.
Now let us imagine the interpretation of the constitutional order as we have seen Aznar To ensure the management of ports (Ley 62/1997), it would be enough to amend Ley 48/1960 on air navigation – widely amended in 2025 – to insert this new shared management authority.
So the Constitution, whether in the most orthodox form of an organic transfer law, or the most contentious form of an ordinary sectoral law, requires the same thing: the intervention of general courts. By no means is it enough to focus on bilateral negotiations.
The legal analysis of the agreement, according to the press release of the Ministry of Transport on the subject, is even more complicated.
According to this minister, the agreement consists in the creation of a “bilateral airport authority”, which – as repeatedly stated – has no management authority, nor its agreements are binding, nor do they change the legal regime of AENA, nor the creation of airport regulatory documents. nothing at all
Some reticent lawyer might say that it is one thing in theory to be limited to “creating synergies and aligning policies aimed at achieving cleaner, more efficient, safe airports at a high level in the quality of service they provide” and how that works in practice.
But since I am not one of those reticent lawyers, I must conclude that on the first reading the declaration is fully constitutional, in view of this tortuous prose, no executive authority, either exclusive or shared, can be attributed to Vasco Land in matters of airports of general interest.
However, I doubt that this “airport bilateral authority” is constitutional from another point of view: the principle of legality presupposes that public authorities can only act in accordance with the powers granted to them by the legal order, and I do not even go so far as to see what rule allows a bilateral committee to create this authority.
“The constitution does not clearly declare that Spain has a parliamentary system, although the current government ignores it with some frequency.”
The Ministry’s press release does not say so, and for me I am unable to fulfill this legal basis.
Furthermore, it is not the country’s statute that is specific and that the committee created is exclusively to establish “norms in accordance with those which will transfer to the autonomous communities the competences corresponding to them by virtue of this statute”.
However, one can rely on Ley 40/2015, The Legal Regime of the Public Sector may not allow bilateral commissions to create permanent bodies of sectoral cooperation, only “working groups”.
It is not certain that there is only one precedent so far. It is not allowed by the functional regulation of this bilateral committee (Regulation TMD/1217/2024 of 29 October), as only the capacity to create permanent subcommittees and temporary working groups is granted.
An analysis of the nation’s government position thus leads us, by various means, to the same fate as a broad analysis of the government’s position: the constitutional block demands that the creation of this bilateral airport authority be a decision of the general courts.
There is no need for complex changes in legal status or opening up of organic transfer law. Bastaría with ordinary ley; Let’s review air navigation. But knowledge of the Bilateral Cooperation Committee is not enough.
The constitution nowhere declares that Spain has a parliamentary system, although it is ignored with some frequency in the current government, as it is ignored in Segismundo en Life is sweet which the king could not impose arbitrarily.
*** Agustín Ruiz Robledo is a member of the Constitution Department of the University of Granada.
Leave a Reply