The municipal Legal Advisory, led by Tatiana Quintana, has lodged an appeal against the judicial decision that ordered the festival to be moved to a location where it would not disrupt the living conditions of residents in areas such as Belén María, Manuel Becerra square, La Luz square, or Los Patos square. The council seeks to annul the prohibition and, subsidiarily, to limit the compensation for the complaining neighbors to 1,500 euros, or even 500 euros for three of them, for disturbances during the 2024 Queen's Gala, instead of the 50,000 euros per appellant.
This generalization does not arise from the evidence; rather, it exceeds it.
The appeal is based on an alleged erroneous assessment of damages. Quintana argues that the generalized impact attributed to the entire Carnival was based on sound measurements taken at a specific time and in a few homes, which were not extrapolable to the rest of the days or properties, according to the neighbors' own expert. Furthermore, the City Council believes that the evidence provided by its expert and the measures implemented to mitigate noise, such as acoustic limiters on stages and sound reducers in sensitive areas, were not properly valued.
The Legal Advisory also criticizes the validity of the measurements taken by the Local Police's Mediation and Conciliation Unit (UMEC), as their reports were not ratified in court, nor did their authors appear to answer questions. The technical qualification of the officers to perform acoustic measurements and assess equipment like sound limiters is questioned, noting that the presumption of veracity of officers is limited to objective facts, not technical assessments.
The ruling, under the guise of protecting a particular right, imposes a general prohibition that nullifies a municipal competence and limits one of the city's most important cultural manifestations.
The appeal defends the municipal authority to temporarily suspend acoustic quality objectives in areas not declared saturated, arguing that the ruling transforms this suspension into a presumption of harm, exempting plaintiffs from proving specific damages. It warns that the judicial decision could imply a de facto prohibition of mass cultural events in the city, as there are no large tracts of land disconnected from residential use to host an event of the Carnival's magnitude. The City Council reproaches the judge for not weighing the “vast general interest” of the festival against individual rights, without considering that the noise is neither chronic nor unpredictable and that measures were adopted to minimize its impact.
Finally, the compensation of 2,000 euros per day per appellant throughout the Carnival is considered disproportionate and arbitrary, lacking motivation and becoming a disguised sanction. It is recalled that measurements were only taken on February 9, the day of the Queen's Gala and the subsequent street party, and that this was extrapolated to all days without additional evidence. Comparisons are made with cases in Galicia and Valencia where compensation for longer festive periods was significantly lower.
