El Alcoraz stadium in Huesca sits in a legal limbo. Despite decades of operation and a long history of matches, the facility has no current opening or operating license. The city of Huesca, capital of Alto Aragon, has repeatedly ordered its immediate closure and steps toward regularizing its urban status. The decree that prompted this approach was signed by the former mayor, Luis Felipe, just days before local and regional elections last May. No administrative objection was filed against the order within the deadlines, reinforcing its final character.
The city council’s statement notes that the mayor’s decree was notified to Sociedad Deportiva Huesca on May 18, 2023, and no administrative remedy or challenge was lodged in time. A letter from the council replying to the club confirms this and indicates that the appeal and any request to delay the decree were not accepted. The process began with a plan to formalize the stadium’s status and to allow it to reopen and operate, but the council did not grant the requested injunction to suspend the mayor’s decision. The contract and planning measures were to be pursued under a formal urban planning process, and the club’s presentation by director José Luis Ortas Pérez was part of that process.
From there, the situation broadened into a political dispute. The presiding mayor, Lorena Orduna, now led a chain of objections viewed as problematic for various reasons. An extraordinary application for reconsideration was filed on May 17, but its status was unstable and some officials viewed it as inconsistent with the current timelines. Municipal technicians recommended that only objections and amendments be considered under the provisions of the Public Administrations Law 39/2015, indicating that no mechanism existed to halt the current order through that route.
Some officials suggested that an extraordinary review might be the only path, though the club argued error in grading the text. The city responded that the club’s objection did not reference Article 125.1 of Law 39/2015, a point reiterated in the club’s own correspondence. As a result, the precautionary suspension of activity requested by SD Huesca was not granted.
Possible loss and irreversible damage were central to the debate. The stadium had been ordered closed in May, and the club, which had not yet played a league match this season, faced a disrupted schedule. Previously, one official match had been played against Eibar; in the current campaign, seven official matches had taken place. The governing consortium argues that the order undermines its authority and jeopardizes livelihoods, potentially causing lasting harm.
SD Huesca argued that suspending operations would harm both fans and the club’s competitive standing. The club referenced professional league regulations and warned that continued closure could lead to penalties, expulsion from competitions, and significant financial losses. It claimed that more than 200 indirect jobs could be affected, along with staff essential to match days.
The club described the scenario as a possible disaster, warning that the stadium could be closed entirely while the club faced dissolution in the broader league context. The city council countered that the situation resulted largely from the club’s earlier inaction and from a failure to submit the necessary documents in a timely fashion.
Regarding damages, the council suggested that the financial impact claimed by the club was not proven and emphasized that public safety considerations must take precedence. It asserted that the required licenses include fire safety arrangements, crowd evacuation plans, and clear emergency exits, arguing that safety responsibilities exceed potential economic harm to the organization.
The current decision, signed by the Deputy Mayor for Urban Planning, Iván Rodríguez, declared the club’s objections unacceptable and directed municipal services to advance the licensing process for the stadium. The stadium remains formally illegal in its current status, despite a long history of indoor matches and top-flight participation. There were investments to expand capacity to 9,100 spectators and prior renovations to meet league standards, all undertaken with municipal authorization in mind. The club argues that operations started under the previous administration without the proper license should not automatically lead to closure; it contends that the licensing process should have included a technical report, which has not been attached. Municipal technicians note that delays point to a broader requirement for action, and the stadium remains a private property issue that cannot be treated lightly. [citation source: city council records, local governance documents]