Maspalomas 24h
https://maspalomas24h.de/art/10045/el-tribunal-supremo-decidira-si-la-pandemia-permite-bajar-el-canon-de-los-hoteles-en-la-costa-de-mogan
23 of March 2026
The Supreme Court will decide whether the pandemic allows for a reduction in the hotel fee on the Mogán coast.
The hotel sector in southern Gran Canaria has managed to create a legal loophole with unforeseen consequences. The Supreme Court, as Maspalomas24H has confirmed, has accepted for review the appeal filed by La Canaria Hotel Operation, owned by Nordic businessman Lars Wenaas and linked to the Radisson Blue Resort complex in Patalavaca (Mogán). The appeal seeks to determine whether the COVID-19 crisis can be legally considered a case of force majeure that would compel the administration to reduce or waive the fee for occupying the public maritime-terrestrial domain.
If the ruling is in favor of the company, it would open the door for numerous concessionaires in southern Gran Canaria to claim refunds for the fees paid during the Great Bull Run, which would provide millions of euros in financial relief for the tourism sector in Mogán and San Bartolomé de Tirajana.
The conflict arose after the Canary Islands Coastal Authority refused to grant extraordinary economic measures to the company, which requested total exemption or a reduction of more than 80% of its fees for the years 2020 and 2021. Until now, the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) had aligned itself with the state’s position, arguing that the Coastal Regulations limit “force majeure” to physical or natural events such as earthquakes, tsunamis or fires, leaving out epidemiological crises.
However, the Supreme Court considers that there is a clear legal interest in the case, as there is no specific case law clarifying whether a pandemic justifies the modification of a coastal concession. The ruling will be of paramount importance for the Canary Islands coastline: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Mogán hotel, it will set a precedent allowing hundreds of beaches and hotel concession holders to claim refunds of millions of euros paid during the months of the tourism shutdown.
The final decision now rests with the Fifth Section of the Administrative Court. The legal debate will focus on interpreting whether the “exceptional cause” mentioned in the Coastal Law is flexible enough to justify the hotel closures caused by the virus, an interpretation that the State categorically rejects but which the Supreme Court deems necessary to clarify for the entire country.
The key to the TSJC’s initial ruling, now under appeal, was a restrictive interpretation of the Coastal Regulations:
Article 162.2 of the Regulation limits “force majeure” to physical events such as coastal erosion, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, or fires. The Canary Islands court considered that the health crisis did not fall under these categories, since the regulation refers to “physical or natural phenomena that affect public property.”
The Supreme Court has decided to intervene because there is no prior case law on whether a pandemic allows for the modification of this type of concession. The justices deem it necessary to clarify whether the concept of “force majeure” included in the Coastal Law is applicable to a global epidemiological crisis. The High Court must determine whether COVID-19 is an “exceptional cause” that justifies altering the economic conditions of hotels on the coast.
