Constitutional Court rules Valencian protection for Babilonia houses unconstitutional

The full bench of Spain’s Constitutional Court has upheld the constitutional challenge brought by the Prime Minister against three provisions of Law 3/2025, passed by Les Corts Valencianes on 22 May, on the protection and management of the Valencian coast. It has ruled unconstitutional the regional protection the Generalitat sought to use to shield the houses on Babilonia beach in Guardamar del Segura from demolition.

The judgment, written by the court’s vice-president, Inmaculada Montalbán Huertas, expressly examines the State Attorney’s Office’s argument concerning the Babilonia buildings, whose demolition has been ordered by final court rulings and remains pending. The court notes that a constitutional challenge is a means of reviewing legislation in the abstract, not of examining the intentions attributed to the legislature.

What the ruling says. Article 17 and the first final provision of the Valencian law are declared unconstitutional only insofar as they apply to public maritime-terrestrial domain land. The court has not declared them void, so both provisions can continue to apply in other coastal areas, where protecting these settlements does not raise the jurisdictional conflict identified in the judgment. The fourth additional provision, by contrast, is declared unconstitutional and void.

Article 17, key to Babilonia. This article covers what are known as “urban settlements of special ethnological value”: groups of homes, shops or buildings connected with traditional economic activities and considered to have cultural, historical or ethnological value that should be preserved. Babilonia residents sought to be recognised under this provision, which the Generalitat relied on in an attempt to halt the demolitions.

The court’s reasoning. The Constitutional Court recognises that the Valencian Community can protect the cultural, historical and ethnological value of urban settlements along its coast, even when they stand on public maritime-terrestrial domain land. But it warns that such protection cannot restrict the powers the State holds over that land. The problem, it explains, is that the regional law does more than recognise these values: it allows special plans to be approved with conservation measures and brings the settlements under the Valencian cultural heritage protection regime, which entails duties to preserve the buildings and restrictions on demolishing them. Where those measures affect public domain land, the court concludes, they could prevent the State from taking the action needed to protect its integrity and restore it, as required under coastal legislation.

The inventory of degraded land. The fourth additional provision allowed the Generalitat to compile an inventory of degraded land within the public maritime-terrestrial domain. The court considers that this goes beyond simply gathering information, as it gives the regional administration the power to identify and classify land according to whether it may have lost the characteristics of public domain land. This, it finds, encroaches on the State’s powers to determine which land forms part of that domain and to decide on its boundaries and any possible removal from public domain status.

Dissenting opinions. Judges Ricardo Enríquez Sancho, Enrique Arnaldo Alcubilla, Concepción Espejel Jorquera and José María Macías Castaño have announced that they will issue dissenting opinions.

The Generalitat’s response. Sources from the third vice-presidency and the Department of the Environment, Infrastructure, Territory and Recovery, headed by Vicente Martínez Mus, said the Consell’s determination to protect Valencians living on the coast remains “unwavering” and that every legal avenue will be explored to protect coastal settlements of special ethnological value. In its initial reading, the regional government says the Constitutional Court has not ruled that these settlements cannot be protected, but has questioned whether a regional government can do so. It says the judgment leaves open the possibility of protection under state law. It adds that, apart from this article, the rest of the law remains in force and will continue to be implemented, and expressed regret that the ruling reached the media before the Generalitat itself.

The president of the Generalitat, Juanfran Pérez Llorca, has struck a cautious tone, saying the Consell will analyse the judgment before setting out a final position. In his view, the court does not question the validity of the Valencian law, but considers that responsibility for protecting these settlements lies with the State rather than the regional governments. Pérez Llorca said the State is currently failing to protect those who live in the houses and defended the case for a regional coastal law under the Estatut d'Autonomia.

The PSPV’s reaction. María José Salvador, the PSPV’s deputy spokesperson in Les Corts, recalled that her party had argued from the outset that the law encroached on state powers. She accused the PP of promoting it to confront the Spanish Government and of raising expectations among affected residents, and called for Minister Martínez Mus to resign.

The PP’s reaction. Wences Alós Valls, the PP mayor of Moncofa and the law’s rapporteur, described the ruling as a “serious setback” for protecting the cottages in seaside settlements and accused the central government of wanting them demolished. He said the government had blocked both routes to protecting these settlements: by challenging the regional law and, he claimed, by delaying reform of the state Coastal Law in Congress through repeated extensions to the deadline for amendments. Alós warned that Babilonia was not an isolated case and named other settlements, including Morro de Gos, Torre de la Sal, Nules, Moncofa, Xilxes, Almassora, Guardamar and Dénia. He also argued that a change of government was needed to protect the homes.

Babilonia residents. Manuel López, representing the Playa de Babilonia Residents’ Association, said they wanted to see the exact wording of the judgment to understand its legal reasoning. He believes the Generalitat’s work was legally sound and argues that the Constitutional Court is being used to provide legal cover for what he considers a political decision, even though the regional legislation follows the precedent of the Galician law. López said he was surprised by the government’s determination to demolish homes and evict families at a time when housing is one of the country’s main problems. He also said the government had taken only a few weeks to transfer coastal powers to the Basque Country and Catalonia, while the transfer to the Valencian Community had been stalled for months.

The houses. The houses on Babilonia beach are simple, traditional-style homes built on the sand in the early decades of the 20th century. Guardamar engineer Francisco Mira (1862–1944) led the major reforestation of the dunes, which prevented the sand from burying the town and enabled the coastal strip to develop. Residents say the homes were built under administrative concessions promoted by the administration itself. The Coastal Authority’s demolition orders are based on the absence of a legal title to occupy the land and on a final Supreme Court judgment upholding the order issued by the National High Court.

How events reached this point. The Valencian law came into force in May 2025. In early September that year, with the deadline for owners to demolish the homes themselves due to expire on 15 September, the Generalitat agreed to consider recognising the site as an urban settlement of special ethnological value and to suspend work in the area as a precaution. This led residents to halt the planned demolition. In October, the Ministry for Ecological Transition sent the Generalitat a formal request to overturn both decisions, warning that it would take the matter to the administrative courts if the request was not met. The Generalitat replied that it would not withdraw its support for the houses.

In February 2026, the Council of Ministers agreed to challenge Article 17, the first final provision and the fourth additional provision before the Constitutional Court. The government argued that the provisions breached state coastal legislation and that the law was a “one-off law”. In March, the court admitted the challenge and suspended Article 17, with effect from 26 February. In August, it partially lifted the suspension affecting the law, but kept that article suspended and expressly referred to Babilonia beach in its reasoning.