A neighbor was forced by the Spanish Court to remove a metal structure for parking bicycles placed in a common area of a garage, after it was concluded that the installation occupied a passage area and invaded part of the space (the “flight”) of another space, making access to the storage of neighboring owners difficult. According to the Spanish portal Noticias Trabajo, the decision of the Pontevedra Provincial Hearing considered the situation an abuse of rights and a “molesting and disturbing” action, ordering the removal of the structure and bicycles.
A “practical arrangement” in the building’s garage does not always go unnoticed. In Spain, a case that reached the Pontevedra Provincial Hearing ended with a clear order: remove the metal structure and bicycles, as they occupied a common area and affected the rights of neighbors.
The dispute began when owners complained that the installation made it difficult for them to maneuver and access the basement/storage. In addition to the rack for two bicycles, the authors also alleged that the neighbor parked his car sideways invading the adjacent space.
According to the description cited by Noticias Trabajo, the support was a metal base screwed to the floor, placed in a passage area between parking spaces and access to storage, and which also occupied the “flight” (the upper space) of another space. This set, concluded the court of second instance, limited the normal use of common and private spaces.
What the court decided and what changed in the second instance
In the first instance, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no. 9 of Vigo condemned the neighbor not to park and occupy part of the other person’s space and set 2,000 euros for moral damages, but understood that sufficient damage had not been proven to order the removal of the bicycle structure.
The Pontevedra Provincial Hearing confirmed the conviction and went further: it considered that the occupation of the common crossing area and the invasion of the “flight” of the neighboring space were sufficient to justify the removal, as it was an uncomfortable and disturbing action.
According to the same source, the court also applied the doctrine of “evident damage” (ex re ipsa), admitting damage without the need for direct proof when the harassment is evident in everyday life, as occurs in obstacles that affect circulation and access.
The rules used in the decision: use of the common without harming third parties
In the reasoning cited by Noticias Trabajo, the decision points to typical rules of co-ownership and horizontal property. Article 394 of the Spanish Civil Code establishes that each co-owner can use common things, as long as they do so according to their destination and without harming the interest of the community or preventing others from using them according to their rights.
The Spanish Horizontal Property Law also provides mechanisms to put an end to “annoying” situations, among others, when they contradict the applicable law, statutes or general provisions.
In this specific case, the fact that there were internal community rules approved in the assembly that prohibited the placement of objects in common areas also weighed heavily, ruling out the idea of generalized “tolerance” for this type of installation.
Is the decision final?
According to , the sentence is not final and can still be appealed to the Supreme Court, depending on the applicable legal requirements. For many condominiums, the case works as a warning: even when the intention is to “organize” bicycles, occupying common passage areas or interfering with third party space can be understood as a disturbance to normal use and end up with a court order for removal.
What if it were in Portugal? What the law allows the condominium to do
In Portugal, a similar case, with a bicycle rack placed in a common area of the garage and making access to storage difficult, would tend to be classified as improper use of common areas and, in certain cases, as an unauthorized innovation. The basic rule is that common parts must remain usable by everyone.
If the structure is bolted to the floor, occupies the passage or “steals” space for use by other co-owners, article 1425 of the Civil Code is clear on one point: in the common parts of the building, innovations capable of harming the use, by any co-owner, of both their own and common things are not permitted. In other words, even if someone claims that it “doesn’t bother”, there is enough to be a real harm to normal use (manoeuvres, circulation, access to the rear) for the matter to be stopped.
In practice, the path passes through the condominium assembly and the administrator. If there are internal regulations prohibiting the placement of objects in common areas, the condominium’s position becomes even more robust. If the neighbor does not withdraw voluntarily, the administrator may proceed with formal action and, when necessary, resort to legal means, in accordance with article 1437 of the Civil Code, including with the authorization of the assembly when applicable.
In practical terms, the essential thing is to: record the situation (photographs/video), communicate in writing to the administrator, request the inclusion of the topic on the meeting’s agenda and, if there is no solution, proceed with formal means to request removal, restoration of the previous state and, when there is a basis, compensation for losses.
Also read:
