The Constitutional Court has ruled partially in favour of the appeal of unconstitutionality filed by more than fifty members of the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress of Deputies against several articles of Law 12/2023, of 24 May, on the right to housing. The ruling, drafted by Judge María Luisa Segoviano Astaburuaga, mostly follows the criteria established in a previous ruling, STC 79/2024, which had already dealt with a similar appeal brought by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. As a result, many of the objections have been dismissed or have been rejected.

The Court has analysed various issues, including the possible exceeding of the State in the exercise of its powers by regulating urban and civil aspects, the possible infringement of local autonomy and the alleged violation of constitutional rights such as the right to property and effective judicial protection.

In this sense, it rejected the arguments questioning the constitutionality of article 15.1 of the law, concluding that it represents a legitimate exercise of state powers and that the reduction of the decision-making capacity of the local councils is proportionate to the general interests at issue.

According to the Constitutional Court ruling on the appeal of unconstitutionality against Law 12/2023 of 24 May on the right to housing, Article 15.1 of the law has been declared constitutional.

The Court has dismissed the jurisdictional objections to this article, concluding that its content is a legitimate exercise of the State competences set out in Article 149.1.1 and 149.1.13 of the Spanish Constitution. This means that the precept is valid within the framework of the distribution of competences between the State and the Autonomous Communities.

Moreover, the claim stating that Article 15.1 infringes on local autonomy has been rejected, as the reduction in the decision-making capacity of local councils in this area is considered to be proportional to the importance of the general and supra-local interests affected. In other words, the Court has determined that the rule establishes an appropriate balance between state competences and municipal autonomy, justifying its validity in terms of the general interest in urban planning and the right to housing.

Article 15.1 of Law 12/2023, of 24 May, on the right to housing, establishes mechanisms to expand the offering of social or endowment housing. In particular, it allows land-use and urban planning instruments to be able to:

• Establish as a compatible use of public land (endowment housing is a type of publicly-owned housing intended to cover social and non-permanent housing needs. It is developed on land classified as endowment or public land in urban planning and is aimed at specific groups with difficulties in accessing housing on the free market) for the construction of public endowment housing.
• Obtain land for endowment or social housing through urban transformation actions.
• To guarantee the construction of public housing on the land resulting from the fulfilment of the duty set out in letter b) of section 1 of article 18 of the revised text of the Law on Land and Urban Rehabilitation, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 7/2015, of 30 October, which establishes that land and urban planning instruments must allocate suitable and sufficient land for productive and residential uses, saving a proportion of it for housing subject to a public protection regime that, at least, allows the maximum price to be established for sale, rent or other forms of access, such as surface rights or administrative concession.

It also dismissed the objection against Article 31 of Law 12/2023 of 24 May on the right to housing, which establishes the minimum information that must be provided to anyone wishing to buy or rent a home, considering that it responds to the need to guarantee transparency in transactions and that its basis lies within the State’s competences in matters of civil legislation.

Article 31 establishes the minimum information that the person interested in the purchase or rental of a property on offer must be able to request prior to the formalisation of the contract. The objection argued that this regulation exceeded the competences of the State in matters of civil legislation, taking over the competences of the Autonomous Communities.

However, the Constitutional Court has found the rule to be constitutional. In its reasoning, the Court points out that this article is included within Article 149.1.8 of the Spanish Constitution, which grants the State competence in matters of civil legislation. The purpose of the precept is to guarantee transparency in contractual transactions, a legitimate objective within the state regulatory framework, although the regulation also has indirect effects on the protection of the right to housing.

As for the provision allowing the regulation of rental prices in tensioned market areas, the Court has considered the measure to be reasonable and proportionate, as it only affects an expectation of economic benefit and not the essence of the right to property. It has been emphasised that the rule does not oblige to rent properties or to set prices below market values and that the restriction is temporary and based on objective criteria, and therefore does not violate Article 33 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court also issued a ruling in which it addressed, among other aspects, the constitutionality of the fifth final provision, sections two and six, of Law 12/2023, of 24 May, on the right to housing. These sections introduced modifications to the Law on Civil Proceedings, establishing additional requirements for the admission for processing of claims for recovery of possession and for the initiation of the process of enforcement in the auctioning of real estate. Specifically, large property holders were required to prove whether or not the defendant was in a situation of economic vulnerability.

The appellants argued that these obligations infringed the right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 24(1) of the Spanish Constitution, by imposing additional procedural burdens that could hinder or delay the applicants’ access to justice. The Court, after a detailed analysis, concluded that the contested measures were neither reasonable nor proportionate. It considered that the requirement to prove the defendant’s vulnerable situation imposed an excessive burden on large holders, unjustifiably complicating the exercise of their right to effective judicial protection. Furthermore, the Court noted that these measures could lead to undue delays in judicial proceedings, adversely affecting the principle of legal certainty.

Consequently, the Court partially upheld the unconstitutionality appeal, declaring paragraphs two and six of the fifth final provision of Law 12/2023 to be unconstitutional and invalid.

Paragraph two amends article 439 of the Civil Procedure Act, adding a new section which establishes that, in eviction proceedings for non-payment or expiry of the deadline, when the plaintiff is a large tenant (a natural or legal person who owns a certain number of properties), the claim must be accompanied by a certificate accrediting whether or not the defendant is in a situation of economic vulnerability. This certificate must be issued by the competent social services.

Section six introduces an amendment to Article 686 of the Civil Procedure Act, adding a section that provides that, in mortgage foreclosure proceedings on primary residences, when the foreclosing party is a large landowner, a certificate from the social services certifying whether the foreclosed party is in a situation of economic vulnerability must be provided together with the foreclosure application.

This decision means that the amendments made to the Civil Procedure Act by the mentioned sections remain without effect, re-establishing the previous rules with regard to the requirements for the admission of claims for the recovery of possession and for the initiation of the enforcement procedure in the auction of real estate.

The recent ruling has generated diverse reactions among legal experts. Most agree that the Court’s decision, by upholding much of the law and declaring certain precepts unconstitutional, seeks to balance the protection of the right to housing with respect for other fundamental rights and competences.

Some experts highlight that the ruling reinforces the state’s capacity to intervene in the housing market, especially with regard to regulating rental prices in tensioned areas. They consider this validation to be an important step towards guaranteeing access to decent and affordable housing, especially for the most vulnerable communities.

On the other hand, the annulment of obligations imposed on large holders in court proceedings has been welcomed by those who saw in these measures an excessive procedural burden that could violate the right to effective judicial protection. It is argued that, while it is essential to protect persons in vulnerable situations, the measures adopted should be proportionate and should not impose undue obstacles to the legitimate exercise of owners’ rights.

The legal community, therefore, assesses the ruling as an attempt to find a balance between public intervention in the housing market and the protection of fundamental rights, underlining the importance of legislative measures being proportionate and respectful of the constitutional framework, being a step forward in the recovery of rights by homeowners.

 

******

More information:

Lupicinio International Law Firm

C/ Villanueva 29
28001 Madrid
T: +34 91 436 00 90