One owner was forced to pay her share of the elevator accessibility work approved by the condominium, despite having opposed the project because she considered it affected a space she used as a storage room. The decision was confirmed by the Valencia Provincial Hearing, which considered the condominium agreements valid and binding on all condominium owners.
The case involves the elevator descending to zero, an intervention aimed at eliminating architectural barriers in the building. According to Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters, the owner challenged the agreements approved in an extraordinary meeting in court, claiming that the work affected a space that she used as a trailer and that, therefore, she should not be forced to bear the cost. The court rejected the arguments and confirmed the payment obligation.
A work approved in the assembly and challenged in court
According to the same website, the decision is dated June 30, 2025 and originated from an action brought by the owner against the condominium, arguing that the agreements violated her rights. It maintained that the affected space corresponded to an exclusive use shed and that the intervention should not be imposed without unanimity.
According to the same website, the condominium responded that the work aimed to guarantee the accessibility of the building, in line with applicable legislation, and added that the space in question was never officially recognized as a storage room.
First instance rejected all arguments
According to the Spanish publication, Court of First Instance No. 17 of Valencia rejected the action in its entirety. It considered that the agreements were validly approved under the terms of the Horizontal Property Law and that the affected space was not listed as a new space in the constitutive title or in the building’s statutes.
The court also understood that the prolonged use of the space as a storage room was the result of mere tolerance on the part of the condominium, not creating, in itself, a right that would prevent the execution of an approved work.
Accessibility can be mandatory and does not require unanimity
The Valencia Provincial Hearing confirmed the sentence and framed the case within the rules of the Horizontal Property Law. In Spain, article 10 of Law 49/1960 provides for mandatory works related to universal accessibility and “reasonable adjustments”, including the installation of lifts and other devices, in situations provided for by law.
For works or new common services intended to remove architectural barriers and, in any case, for the establishment of the elevator, article 17, no.
You cannot refuse to pay, even if you disagree with the work
The owner also tried to exclude herself from payment and any loan taken out by the condominium to finance the work. The court rejected this claim, recalling that owners are obliged to contribute to the general expenses of the building in proportion to their share, as established in article 9, paragraph 1, paragraph e), of the Horizontal Property Law.
According to Noticias Trabajo, the decision highlighted that disagreement with the work, or the fact that a condominium owner does not use the elevator, does not, in itself, eliminate the obligation to contribute to common expenses when the intervention is legally approved.
Tolerated use does not equate to acquired rights
One of the central points of the case was the difference between a tolerated use and a formally recognized right. According to the Spanish publication’s report, the court considered that the space was never legally configured as a basement, meaning that its informal use could not impede work intended to improve the building’s accessibility.
There was still a possibility of appeal
The decision did not become final immediately, and it is still possible to file an appeal with the Supreme Court, according to the .
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, there is also no unanimity rule as a starting point for this type of condominium decisions, but the majority varies depending on the nature of the work. In the horizontal property regime, innovations depend, as a rule, on approval by a majority representing two thirds of the total value of the building.
However, if there are at least eight autonomous units, the placement of lifts can be approved by a majority representing the majority of the total value of the building, in accordance with article 1425 of the Civil Code.
Regarding payment, article 1424 of the Civil Code establishes that the expenses necessary for the conservation and enjoyment of common parts and the payment of services of common interest are, as a rule, borne by the condominium owners in proportion to the value of their units, allowing for exceptions: expenses relating to common parts that exclusively serve some condominium owners may be borne by those who use them and, in the case of elevators, only condominium owners whose fractions can be served by them participate.
In practice, when a space is used for storage by mere tolerance, without being formally recognized in the constitutive title or as an exclusive use, this argument tends to have little weight in blocking works approved under legal terms.
Also read:
