The Seventh Chamber of the Contested-Administrative Division ruled on the first request, addressing the advance payment of the provisional tax laid out by the cited law against models 795, 796, 797, and 798. The court did not accept a suspension because it found that refusing it would not cause irreparable harm to the energy company. If the appeal ultimately succeeds, the sums paid, including compulsory interest, could be fully reversed, so the financial impact would not be permanent.
In their assessment, the court underscored that damages arising from non-suspension would amount to simply complying with the declaration obligations set forth by the Ministerial Decree, and such damages would be reversible if the appellant company’s claims were granted. The panel emphasized that the situation does not involve lasting harm; rather, any liability could be corrected if the case rules in favor of the appellant.
serious damage to the general interest
The court, however, found that suspending the decision along with the law would seriously harm the general interest by obstructing the collection of the tax. It stressed that granting the injunction would frustrate a fundamental aim of the law, which is to ensure timely tax collection. In light of the energy crisis and rising inflation, the court argued that a broader display of solidarity from large fortunes, toward those with less capacity to bear financial shocks, would be appropriate in these times.
As a result, the court concluded that the injunction sought by Repsol would cause a rigidity in the legal system. The precautionary measure tied to the Ministry of Development Decree would paralyze the enforcement of a law that has a detailed explanatory justification and does not align with actions by the Department. In essence, the court asserted that it cannot annul statutes solely by court order.
Even though Repsol pointed out that it did not pursue suspension through precautionary justice of the law, the court noted that any such effect would inherently be linked to the adoption of the injunction requested by the appellant.
Inflation and the Ukrainian war
The chamber also highlighted that the reasons for applying the temporary tax are contained within the law itself. It pointed to rising inflation, the effects of the Ukraine War, ongoing supply problems from the pandemic, and modest wage increases as context for the measure. Yet the court added that it would not adjudicate the broader economic arguments, noting that judges are not tasked with rewriting general provisions or substituting the targeted provisions that are being annulled. The National Court recalled that on February 10, Repsol had already denied its initial claim. The option to suspend the Ministerial Decree by taking extremely precautionary actions existed, but such actions would require a formal report from the Administration before acting.