In a recent ruling, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid decided an interesting case in the area of Spanish condominium law. The case concerned the use of a clothes horse on a balcony and the conflicts between neighbors caused by this. The case is very suitable for providing an insight into Spanish condominium law, as I am often asked which changes and habits have to be tolerated and when it is possible to successfully enforce an injunction. The present case is a very good example of how such neighborhood disputes are regularly handled by Spanish courts.
This case dealt with very fundamental questions: When does the right of an owner to use his property prevail over possible interference from neighbors? What role do long-standing practices or long-standing conditions in a condominium association play? And how do Spanish courts deal with any contradictions between legal requirements and everyday practice?
Origin of the dispute in the Spanish community of owners
The case concerned two neighbors in an apartment building in Madrid. The plaintiff, a resident of a lower apartment, complained about a clothes horse (in this case in the form of several fixed, parallel clothes lines) that her upper neighbor (the defendant) had installed on her balcony. The plaintiff argued that the clothes horse was taking away her light and that drops of water were falling onto her balcony. She demanded the removal of the clothes horse and a ban on drying laundry in this location.
The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the clothes horse had been in this position for 30 years and had never caused any problems before. She pointed out that other residents also used similar clothes drying racks.
At first instance, the plaintiff was successful and the neighbor was ordered to remove the clothesline installation. The defendant appealed against this. The Court of Appeal followed the defendant’s assessment, overturned the judgment at first instance and ruled that the installation could remain.
How the Spanish court applied the Condominium Act
The court had to weigh up several important legal aspects:
On the one hand, the long-term use had to be taken into account. Several witness statements confirmed that the clothes horse or clothesline installation had been in the same position for at least 20 years and that the design had always been the same. Long-term use of this kind can, if necessary, create a legitimate expectation for the user. This was therefore also an important factor in the court’s decision.
On the other hand, the use of an individual owner must also be considered in relation to the use and behavior of the other owners and residents. Under the generic term “common practice”, the court must take into account whether other owners may restrict the rights of the other residents just as intensively or even more intensively. In this context, the court found that other apartments in the same building used similar clothes drying racks and dryer installations, which suggested that such behavior was a practice accepted by the community.
Furthermore, the court had to assess the severity of the encroachment by the sued neighbor. This is because the extent and severity of the interference can determine whether it is generally tolerable, normal behavior or a more serious interference. In reaching its decision, the court must assess whether the manner in which the laundry is dried and the associated impairments or disadvantages for the plaintiff owner constitute a sufficiently serious interference to justify a ban.
Ultimately, as we can see, it comes down to weighing up the property rights of the individual owner against the interests of the other neighbors and the community as a whole.
The court came to the conclusion that the use of the clothes horse and the associated disadvantages for the plaintiff did not reach the required severity to justify a ban. It was particularly emphasized that the community statutes did not contain any specific rules on this issue and that the community of owners itself had not taken any legal action.
Effects on the practice of Spanish condominium law
This decision has several important implications:
1. Importance of long-established practices: The ruling emphasizes that long-established practices in a condominium association can carry significant weight.
2. Threshold for disturbances: It becomes clear that not every inconvenience is considered sufficiently serious to justify legal action up to and including a ban.
3. Role of the community statutes: The absence of specific rules in the community statutes or declaration of division can be interpreted in favor of the defendant owner.
4. Importance of community decisions: The fact that the community of owners itself had not taken any legal action was accorded special significance by the court.
How should the owner of a property subject to condominium law behave?
This decision provides valuable insights into the handling of neighbor disputes in Spanish condominium law. It shows that Spanish courts tend to take a balanced approach that takes into account both individual rights and community practices. For property owners in Spain, this case underlines the importance of familiarizing themselves with the specific situation in their community and making sure that the behaviour of the other owners does not imply tacit acquiescence before considering legal action.
The ruling urges caution when taking legal action over supposedly minor disturbances and emphasizes the importance of the lack of community bylaws and overall tolerant behavior towards other owners. It shows how important it is for community bylaws to contain clear rules on potentially conflictual aspects and issues in order to avoid future disputes.
Frequently asked questions – FAQ
What is the legal basis in Spain for disputes in homeowners’ associations?
In Spain, the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (LPH, Home Ownership Law) regulates the rights and obligations of homeowners. Article 7.2 LPH is particularly relevant as it prohibits activities that are considered disruptive, harmful, dangerous or illegal. In Catalonia, as one of Spain’s autonomous communities, Book 5 of the Catalan Civil Code (Libro V. del Código Civil de Cataluña) applies in this regard.
How is it decided in Spain whether an activity is disruptive enough to warrant legal action?
Spanish courts look at several factors: the severity of the disturbance, its duration and frequency, the impact on other residents and whether the activity violates specific community rules. A mere inconvenience is usually not enough.
What is the significance of long-standing practices in Spanish homeowners’ associations?
As this case shows, long-standing practices can carry considerable weight. If an activity has been carried out for many years without complaint, this can serve as an argument for its continuation.
What role do the community statutes play in such disputes?
The community rules are of central importance. If they contain specific rules on a disputed issue, these generally take precedence. In the absence of such rules, as in the present case, this can be interpreted in favor of the defendant owner.
What steps should property owners in Spain take before taking legal action?
It is advisable to first try to talk to the neighbor in question. If this is unsuccessful, you should contact the administrator or the chairman of the owners’ association. Only when these avenues have been exhausted should legal action be considered.
When should a lawyer be called in?
Do you have any further questions?
Relevant legal bases
Article 7.2 of the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (LPH): This article is of central importance in Spanish condominium law, as it forms the basis for the prohibition of disruptive, harmful, dangerous or illegal activities in condominium associations.
Important quote from the judgment (Spanish / German):
| “Estamos ante un acción de cesación del artículo 7.2 LPH, de modo que el cese de la actividad ha de fundarse en la realización de una actividad prohibida en los estatutos que resulte molesta o insalubre, o nociva, peligrosa o ilícita, y en el presente supuesto se advierte que no se cumplen estos criterios de la mínima gravedad que ha de exigirse.” | “This is an action for an injunction under Article 7.2 LPH, so that the injunction must be based on the carrying on of an activity prohibited by the statute which is vexatious or unwholesome or harmful, dangerous or unlawful, and in the present case it is found that these criteria of minimum gravity which must be required are not satisfied.” |
This statement underlines that a certain minimum severity of disturbance must be achieved for an activity to be prohibited under Article 7.2 LPH.
This case provides German property owners in Spain with valuable insights into the handling of neighbor disputes in the Spanish legal system. It highlights the importance of tolerance, communication and understanding local customs. At the same time, it shows the importance of clear regulations in the community statutes to avoid potential conflicts. It is therefore advisable for German owners not only to familiarize themselves with the relevant Spanish regulations, but also to know the bylaws and house rules they have drawn up themselves, as well as relevant previous resolutions, in order to be able to live harmoniously in their Spanish property.
