Urban leases

The Constitutional Court (TCo) has ruled in favor of a landlady who filed for constitutional protection because, as she argued, the court had maintained the suspension of an eviction for a long time without properly justifying it. The case started as an eviction for non-payment of rent against the tenant, but when the time came to carry out the eviction, she no longer occupied the house, inside there were third parties, including a man with a minor daughter, without a contract or title justifying their stay. With the pandemic, suspensions of the eviction due to vulnerability were being agreed upon. In 2021, the court itself expressly stated that the rule intended for tenants did not apply, but rather that of the occupant without title, which also requires that the owner be a legal entity or a "large holder". without properly motivating it.

The case started as a eviction for non-payment rental claim against the tenant, but when the time came to execute the eviction, the housing was no longer occupied by her, inside there were third parties , including a man with a minor daughter, without contract or title justifying their stay. With the pandemic , suspensions of the eviction due to vulnerability were being agreed upon. In 2021, the court itself expressly stated that the rule intended for tenants did not apply, but rather that of the occupant without title , which also requires the owner whether legal entity or "large holder".

Years later, the property was sold and the owner entered the procedure as "new owner". She argued that a key requirement set by law was no longer met, that the owner must be a legal entity or an individual with more than ten properties (and in this case, that was not the case). However, in 2023, the court extended the suspension, stating that it was a "normal" eviction for non-payment and that it was not a case of unlawful occupation. without explaining why he was changing what he himself had said in 2021, and without carrying out the assessment required by law. The Constitutional Court points out that the suspension of the eviction must be applied after a weighted and proportional assessment of the circumstances. The incorrect consideration of the procedure as an eviction for non-payment instead of unlawful occupation, along with the failure to assess the change in ownership and legal requirements, constitutes a blatant error that violates effective judicial protection.

If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any disputes related to a residential lease, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions to defend your interests. extended the suspension stating that it was a "normal" eviction for non-payment and that was not a case of occupation without explanation as to why he changed what he himself had said in 2021, and without carrying out the assessment required by law.

The TCo indicates that the suspension of the eviction must be applied following a weighted and proportionate assessment of the circumstances. The incorrect consideration of the procedure as a lease eviction instead of unauthorized occupation, along with the failure to assess the change in ownership and legal requirements, constitutes a clear error that violates effective judicial protection

If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any dispute related to a lease agreement, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions to defend your interests