The appeal, lodged by the Regional General Advocacy, focuses on the assertion that the state plan violates regional competencies in housing matters, curtails the management capacity of the community, and encroaches upon areas legally reserved for regional administrations. Furthermore, it criticizes the regulation for substantially increasing the financial obligations for autonomous communities.
The appeal references the opinion of the Council of State, which had previously warned of potential excessive interference in the financial autonomy of regions due to the imposed co-financing. The Madrid government believes this additional economic burden is being transferred without effective negotiation regarding the plan's content and financing conditions, noting that Madrid's required contribution has quintupled compared to the previous program.
The complaint also addresses the lack of institutional dialogue during the plan's development and its final approval by the Council of Ministers without prior consensus with regional governments. According to the Madrid administration, this approach hinders planning and delays the implementation of measures to facilitate housing access.
Another point of contention is the requirement to establish a permanent protection regime for certain publicly subsidized housing units. The Community of Madrid considers this mandate to exceed state competencies, citing previous rulings by the Constitutional Court, and believes it could create legal uncertainty by forcing modifications to established regulatory frameworks.
The appeal contends that the State Housing Plan limits the adaptability of public policies to the specific needs of each region by imposing uniform programs. It advocates for regional governments to have sufficient scope to prioritize actions based on their social, economic, and demographic realities.
Finally, the transfer of state funds being conditioned on compliance with obligations unrelated to the plan's purpose, such as institutional advertising or administrative information exchange, is rejected. These requirements are seen as potentially partisan uses of resources intended for housing policies. The regional government regrets that its prior objections were not incorporated and criticizes the model of imposition over institutional cooperation.
