The High Court Overturns Benidorm's Attempt to Nullify a Key Ruling on Sierra Helada Land

The High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV) has dismissed the nullity incident filed by the Benidorm City Council against ruling 343/2024, which was unfavourable to them in an appeal related to urban planning agreements linked to the APR-7 land in the vicinity of the Serra Gelada Natural Park. The resolution, accessed by TodoAlicante, was signed on June 5 and notified to the parties on Monday, the 23rd.

The contested ruling, issued in May 2024, sided with a group of developers and companies — including Murcia Puchades Expansión SL and Urbana Villajoyosa 2000 SL — by considering fully valid agreements that recognise urban development rights on undeveloped land, classified as urban since 1963.

The now-known ruling, exclusively accessed by TodoAlicante, upholds the previous condemnation which, among other consequences, obliges the city to pay over 330 million euros (with interest continuing to increase this amount daily) to the landowners, thus having a significant impact on the municipal finances and the city's urban future.

The City Council argued that the ruling contained gross errors, such as applying an incorrect article of land legislation (28 instead of 41), and misinterpreting the nature of the agreements, which they believed should be considered compensations for land declassification following the implementation of the Sierra Helada Natural Resources Management Plan (PORN). They also claimed that constitutional principles such as effective judicial protection and procedural congruence were violated.

However, the Court was unequivocal: there is no violation of fundamental rights or internal contradiction in the ruling, but rather a legal interpretation with which the City Council simply disagrees. According to ruling number 153/2025, the judges sided with the landowners (represented by lawyers Raúl Gómez Zaragoza, José Domingo Monforte, and Mª Carmen Escriche) and understood that the agreements were urban management instruments — not compensations for declassification — aimed at ensuring development reserves to balance the growth of other sectors, while also providing public amenities to the city.

They also rejected the claim that the agreements were signed as a form of compensation, as stated by the City Council, and reminded that those lands have been classified as urban since the 1960s.

The judicial decision supports that the owners of these plots retained their right to build or transfer their urban development rights, despite not having constructed or transformed the land. The ruling considers that these agreements aimed to balance the city's growth and ensure sufficient amenity areas — such as parks, schools, or public centres — in other parts of the municipality.

Furthermore, the judges consider that the original ruling applies the valuation criteria provided in the agreements and, therefore, declare them valid and lawful.

The ruling also notes that the nullity incident is an exceptional recourse, reserved for very specific cases of fundamental rights violations, which has not occurred in this case. Nevertheless, its submission is accepted as a mandatory preliminary step for a potential constitutional appeal, which is why no costs are imposed on the City Council.

With this decision, the TSJCV closes the door to a new review of the case within the ordinary jurisdiction, leaving the Benidorm City Council with only the option of a constitutional appeal, provided they can demonstrate a clear and direct violation of fundamental rights.

The judicial conflict is part of a complex dispute over strategic coastal land in Benidorm, and could have significant economic consequences for public finances, especially concerning compensations for urban development rights recognised to private owners through agreements signed between 2001 and 2004.