The court cites the ample jurisprudence in this regard, which insists that the declarations of space free of Israeli Apartheid and the adherence to the BDS campaign violate the basic principles of the Spanish Constitution and other legal bodies.
The Contentious Administrative Court number 1 of Córdoba has annulled the boycott against Israel approved by the City Council of Montemayor (Córdoba).
Thanks to the legal initiative of ACOM, 52 BDS institutional agreements have been legally annulled or by the local and/or public administrations themselves.
On 30 March 2017 the city council of Montemayor – population 3,874 – approved a motion of adherence to the boycott against Israel. Said proposal of adherence to the BDS movement was instigated by the local branch of the left wing party Izquierda Unida, and was supported by the local party ULIA. Socialist party PSOE abstained. This text reflected the commitment of “including special clauses” in its agreements, as well as receiving the seal “Space free of Israeli Apartheid” given by RESCOP and to promote the cooperation with the BDS to ensure the correct implementation of the decision adopted through said conglomerate of organizations at the national level, and the Plataforma Córdoba con Palestina at the regional level.
Now the Contentious Administrative Court number 1 of Córdoba, after the appeal filed by ACOM, has annulled the boycott against Israel approved by the city council of Castro del Río. The court understands that the declaration of Space ELAI is against the principle of equality and non-discrimination and points out that the city council lacked the authority to approve a resolution that interferes with the foreign affairs policy of the State. The court has been especially hard regarding the true intentions of the approved agreement: “It is very clear that the content of the agreement is not a proposal for an agreement, but on the contrary an agreement and a decision on a series of matters”. Regarding the clarification that it does not directly forbid hiring certain entities or people, but that it reserves the possibility of including in the future papers limiting or excluding clauses along that line, it says “that subterfuge is not enough to deny the consideration of administrative act of the impugned act”.