The professional institution considers the electoral result, with 54 percent of the votes for the candidacy headed by Herráez, to be "the direct, free, and democratic expression of the will of Madrid's architects" and the mandate to lead the COAM.
The conflict has resurfaced following communications from the president of the former Electoral Board, who reportedly agreed to proclaim another candidacy as elected. Dean Herráez has informed this president that such actions "lack validity within this Corporation," deeming them contrary to current legal frameworks, judicial rulings, and the existing procedural situation.
According to the COAM, the communicated proclamation contradicts the Order of May 22, 2025, from the Contentious-Administrative Court number 18 of Madrid, confirmed by a Sentence from the High Court of Justice of Madrid on April 30, 2026. The College argues that interim measures cannot be extinguished by a "unilateral interpretation by the Electoral Board" or by an order that has not yet become final.
The institution invokes Article 132.1 of the Law regulating Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, which maintains the validity of interim measures until the process concludes with a final resolution. Furthermore, Court number 18 has processed a written submission regarding the maintenance of the interim measure, keeping the incident open.
Adding to this situation is a new contentious-administrative appeal against the proclamation of candidacies on May 5, 2025, and against the presumed dismissal by administrative silence. This proceeding, before the Contentious-Administrative Court number 23 of Madrid, includes a request for new interim measures still pending resolution.
The Governing Board of the COAM believes that there is no "final, clear, and unequivocal" judicial resolution that empowers the former Electoral Board to proclaim as elected a candidacy that, according to the College, "had lost the election."
The COAM also questions the competence of the former Electoral Board to act at this stage, asserting that its functions are "regulated" and must be exercised "during the electoral process," which the institution considers concluded. Therefore, neither the Board nor its president can substitute the competent collegiate bodies or interpret judicial rulings.
Herráez, on behalf of the Governing Board, has requested the president of the former Electoral Board to refrain from undertaking "any action aimed at executing, publishing, or imposing the communicated proclamation" until the interim measures are definitively lifted, warning of potential liabilities.
Consequently, the COAM states it cannot recognize the validity of these communications or proceed with their execution. The institution defends the need for "stability, transparency, and respect for democratic rules" and concludes that "the defense of the institution and respect for the freely expressed will of its members" must prevail.
