Criticism of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Closure of the Aranjuez-Cuenca-Valencia Railway

• The Supreme Court's Third Chamber has upheld the closure of the Aranjuez-Cuenca-Valencia railway line, rejecting appeals from organizations like United Left and Ecologists in Action.
• The ruling is criticized for treating public rail service as a commodity based on neoliberal economic metrics rather than constitutional social rights.

Infrastructure Neglect and Demand

• Years of disinvestment and poor maintenance by ADIF and Renfe led to degraded infrastructure, speed restrictions, and poor scheduling.
• The Court failed to acknowledge that this state-induced decline directly caused the low ridership figures cited as the primary justification for the closure.

Legal and Procedural Shortcomings

• The judgment ignores Article 5 of the Railway Sector Law (38/2015), which mandates the maintenance and modernization of rail infrastructure for public interest and climate goals.
• The Court deemed it sufficient to consult institutions rather than conducting direct public hearings with the affected rural population, including the elderly, youth, and low-income individuals.

Social Value vs. Fiscal Capacity

• The Court erroneously equated the lack of willingness by local governments to fund the line with a lack of social value for the service.
• Critics argue that a local authority's inability to finance a state-owned utility does not negate the necessity of that service for regional cohesion and the right to mobility, warning that this precedent could threaten other essential public services like healthcare and education.