Noise in the community of owners in Spain

A recent judgment of the Court of First Instance of Burgos (Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Burgos nº 4, judgment nº 197/2024, of May 29), Spain, has addressed important issues regarding noise pollution and disruptive activities in residential complexes. The court partially upheld the claim of a community of owners and ordered the disturbing tenant to refrain from making noise and engaging in loud disputes. The owner of the property, i.e. the landlord, was ordered to work towards preventing the tenant from causing a disturbance. However, the court refused to terminate the contract.

Introduction: A case of neighbor dispute

The defendant Mr. M. lived as a tenant in an apartment of the co-defendant owner, Mr. E. in Burgos. The homeowners’ association accused Mr. M. of causing massive disturbances of the peace through noise, loud arguments, slamming doors and throwing away cigarettes and garbage. This was preceded by warnings to tenants and owners. However, Mr. M. did not comply with the demand to cease and desist, whereupon the community of owners filed a lawsuit. It sought an injunction to cease the disturbances and the termination of the tenancy agreement.

Background to the case

The legal dispute arose from a situation that is probably familiar to many residents of apartment buildings. The owners’ association claimed that a resident, in this case the tenant Mr. M., together with his partner, regularly disturbed the peace and quiet in the residential complex through loud noises, heated arguments and other disruptive behaviour.

The plaintiffs argued that these activities were not limited to the apartment, but also extended to the communal areas. They also claimed that objects were thrown out of the window and that property was damaged.

The community of owners sued both Mr. M. as a tenant and the owner of the apartment, Mr. E. They demanded that the disruptive activities cease and even the termination of the tenancy agreement and the eviction of the apartment.

The court partially upheld the claim. It ordered the tenant, Mr. M., to refrain from disturbing the peace at any time of the day or night, from having annoying arguments and from slamming doors. The owner, Mr. E., was instructed to work towards compliance by the tenant. However, the court refrained from terminating the contract. It justified this by stating that it was more a case of behavior that disturbed coexistence than the exercise of an impermissible activity, as the community of owners had argued. The disturbances had also decreased recently. Termination of the contract would therefore be disproportionate.

The taking of evidence had confirmed that there was a lot of disturbance, even at night. However, the court rejected the view that this was an unlawful activity. This was because a distinction had to be made between an unauthorized activity in the sense of a commercial activity and a simple disturbance of the peace. For this reason, the court also considered termination of the contractual relationship and eviction from the apartment to be too far-reaching. However, below the level of unauthorized activity, the threshold of simple disturbance may still have been exceeded, and this must of course be resolved by balancing the interests of tenants and other residents. As this threshold had been exceeded in the present case, the injunction could also be issued, which in the opinion of the court created an appropriate balance here.

The court ruling

The court justified its decision on the basis of the following aspects:

Article 7.2 of the Spanish Condominium Act (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal) prohibits owners and, in general, any resident from engaging in activities that:

• The articles of association of the community of owners prohibit
• Damage to the property
• Violate general regulations on disruptive, harmful, hazardous, dangerous or illegal activities

The law therefore allows the community of owners to file an action for injunction and even apply to prohibit the use of the apartment for up to three years.

Important aspects of the judgment:

1. Procedural requirements: The court emphasized the importance of the prerequisites prescribed by law, in particular the prior warning to the disruptive party and the resolution of the owners’ meeting to bring an action.
   
2. Burden of proof: The judge attached great importance to concrete evidence of the alleged disturbances. Not all of the plaintiffs’ allegations could be sufficiently substantiated.
   
3. Proportionality: The court carefully weighed up the interests of the community and the rights of the resident disturbing the peace. It found that an order to stop the noise nuisance was sufficient and proportionate.
   
4. Differentiation between owner and occupant / tenant: Although both were sued, the order to stop the disturbance was only directed at the occupant, not the owner.

The judgment therefore had the following effects:

1. Partial recognition of the claims: The court recognized that disruptive activities had indeed taken place, particularly in the form of loud arguments and noise nuisance.
   
2. Order to stop the noise nuisance: The tenant, Mr. M, was ordered to stop causing loud noises at all times of the day, quarrels and slamming doors, thereby ending the nuisance caused by this noise in the communal areas and other apartments.
   
3. Rejection of further claims: However, the court rejected the demands to terminate the tenancy agreement and vacate the apartment. It found these measures to be disproportionate in view of the disturbances identified.
   
4. No decision on costs: As the action was partially upheld, the court ruled that each party was to bear its own legal costs.

Lessons from the judgment

1. Communication is key: Many neighborhood conflicts could be resolved through better communication and mutual understanding before they escalate.
   
2. Documentation is important: communities of owners should carefully document complaints and incidents in order to be able to provide evidence in the event of an emergency.
   
3. Maintain proportionality: Courts prefer balanced solutions that take into account the interests of all parties.
   
4. Legal action as a last resort: Legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted.
   
5. Knowledge of rights and obligations: Both owners and tenants should know their rights and obligations in a residential complex.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

1. Question: What can owners’ associations do if a resident is constantly disruptive?
   
   Answer: Owners “associations should first send the disruptive party a written warning and request that they cease their disruptive activities. If this does not help, the owners” meeting can decide to take legal action.
   
   
2. Question: Can tenants be evicted if they repeatedly cause a disturbance?
   
   Answer: Eviction is an extreme measure that courts only order in serious cases. As a rule, milder measures such as injunctions are preferred in the first instance.
   
   
3. Question: How can residents prove noise nuisance?
   
   Answer: Residents should keep a noise log in which the date, time and type of noise are recorded. If possible, audio recordings should also be made and witness statements collected.
   
   
4. Question: What role does the owner play if the tenant causes a disturbance?
   
   Answer: The owner can be held jointly responsible for the tenant’s behavior, especially if he does not react appropriately after becoming aware of the problems. In the event of persistent disturbances, the owner should warn the tenant and, if necessary, terminate the tenancy agreement.
   
   
5. Question: How long do such court proceedings typically take in Spain?
   
   Answer: The duration can vary greatly, but such proceedings can last from several months to a year or longer.
   
   
6. Question: Are there alternatives to court proceedings?
   
   Answer: Yes, mediation or conciliation proceedings can be effective alternatives.
   
   
7. Question: What costs are incurred in such court proceedings?
   
   Answer: The costs often include not only lawyers’ fees, but sometimes also expert costs. If the claim is partially upheld, as in this case, all parties often bear their own costs. It is therefore important to prepare the claim well, to exhaust out-of-court settlement options and to make realistic demands. If a full judgment is obtained, the opposing party is regularly ordered to pay the costs in the amount of the statutory fees.