Mogán’s Tourist Tax Suspended Following Court Ruling
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has annulled Mogán’s new tourist tax, implemented only a day prior. The court ruled that the ordinance disguised an illegal tax beyond municipal authority.
In a decision announced on Monday, stemming from a 28 May ruling, the court upheld a challenge from the Federation of Hospitality and Tourism Entrepreneurs of Las Palmas (FEHT).
The Mogán council, led by Onalia Bueno of Juntos por Mogán, approved the ordinance in February 2025, which set a fee of €0.15 per person, per night for those staying in local accommodations. The council argued that the tax was necessary to mitigate tourism’s environmental impact and to ensure the sustainability of public services. Hotel owners were mandated to collect the tax.
According to the council, this tax generated €1.4 million in its first year. Bueno stated that a review of the rates had been put on hold pending judicial confirmation, which has yet to emerge.
Both the tourism association and opposition parties, including Nueva Canarias and the PSOE, voiced strong opposition, citing the tax’s illegality. FEHT argued that the ordinance violated legal standards by being based on vague and generic definitions, obstructing clarity on what services the tax would fund.
The court affirmed the FEHT’s claims, noting that while environmental taxes are well-intentioned, municipalities have limited taxing powers. It highlighted that the reasons for imposing the fee were ambiguous, citing general terms like “tourism-related actions” and “environmental projects,” which failed to specify the budget that would obligate citizens to pay.
The ruling emphasised that any fee must align with the actual cost of the services provided. By using the tax as a general revenue source, Mogán’s administration could not demonstrate that this balance was maintained.
The judge also critiqued the financial breakdown provided by the council, noting inconsistencies in how costs were recorded, such as improperly including long-term investment values rather than just annual depreciation.
Although the decision is not final, it requires the council to cover legal costs up to €3,000. The presiding judge, Francisco José Gómez Cáceres, apologised for the delay in issuing the ruling, explaining that an overly lengthy initial draft had extended the process. He expressed his gratitude to those affected by the delay while acknowledging the challenges of conveying his remorse adequately.
