A condominium cannot require the removal of a structure placed on a separating wall between neighbors when this does not affect common elements, does not change the configuration or external state of the building and does not involve an actual impact on security or structure. This was the conclusion of the Spanish justice system in a case publicized by the press, which places the limits of the powers of communities of owners over areas of private use once again at the center of the debate.
According to the Spanish website Noticias Trabajo, which specializes in legal and labor matters, the decision was taken by the Las Palmas Provincial Hearing, which considered null and void a condominium agreement that forced a resident to remove a reed placed on an internal wall on their property.
According to the same source, the court understood that the community went beyond its limits, as the installation did not interfere with the facade or common elements, nor did it change the essential configuration of the property.
When the community decided to intervene
According to the ruling cited by the same source, the decision was taken at a meeting of condominium owners and required the owner to remove the reed within two months. The community maintained that the installation affected the overall aesthetics and changed the configuration of the building.
Faced with the threat of taking legal action, the owner contested the agreement, arguing that the requirement caused him unjustified harm. Also according to the publication, the courts valued the fact that the reed was placed on an internal wall of collision between neighbors, and not on the facade of the building.
The first instance court ruled in favor and declared the agreement null and void. The community appealed, but the Provincial Hearing confirmed the decision.
Aesthetics is not enough to limit property rights
According to Noticias Trabajo, the sentence highlights that the simple aesthetic argument, in itself, is not enough to limit the right of an owner to intervene in his private area. For the community to prohibit a work or demand its removal, there must be a real and proven impact on the safety, structure or external condition of the building.
In this specific case, the decision considered it relevant that the reed was not on the main facade, but on an internal wall separating neighbors. Therefore, it was understood that there was no impact on the common elements or the external image of the complex.
The reasoning invokes article 7 of the Spanish Horizontal Property Law (Law 49/1960), which allows the owner to carry out works on his private part as long as it does not harm the safety of the building, its general structure, configuration or external condition, nor the rights of another owner.
Where does the power of the condominium end?
One of the determining points was the exact location of the installation. As it was an internal collision wall, the court considered that the intervention remained within the normal powers of property law.
According to the same publication, the Provincial Hearing stressed that communities cannot impose generic restrictions based on vague aesthetic criteria when there is no objective and demonstrated affectation of the building as a whole.
The decision also refers to article 18 of the Horizontal Property Law, which regulates the challenge of agreements by the owners’ board and establishes that the challenge, as a rule, does not suspend its execution, unless there is a precautionary court decision.
What changes for other owners
This case is an important reminder for those who live in condominiums: not all interventions in private areas are subject to community control, even when the latter invokes aesthetic reasons. Even so, each situation must be analyzed case by case, given the location of the work and its effective impact on the building and the rights of third parties.
According to , the sentence was not considered final and can be appealed to the Supreme Court, as long as the legal requirements applicable to the cassation appeal are met.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, the framework is similar in terms of principle, although with its own rules. Article 1,422 of the Civil Code establishes, among other limitations, that the condominium owner is prohibited from harming the security, architectural style or aesthetic arrangement of the building, and provides that works that modify the architectural line or the aesthetic arrangement can only proceed with authorization from the condominium assembly approved by a two-thirds majority of the total value of the building.
Furthermore, article 1,421 of the Civil Code defines common parts as, among others, structural elements such as main walls and the parts that make up the structure of the building.
In practice, this means that, if an intervention affects common parts or has an impact on the outside of the building, it tends to require deliberation by the condominium; works confined to the interior of the unit, without impact on common parts or on the architectural line or aesthetic arrangement, tend to remain within the owner’s sphere, as long as legal limits and the rights of other condominium owners are respected.
Also read:
