Beyond the media and political furore caused by the failure to ratify a Royal Decree-Law, there is a clear legal significance to the effects of such a failure on the private lives of Spanish people; a significance which, in the case of Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 of 20 March on rental measures in response to the economic and social consequences of the Iran War, is felt in the real estate sector, a sector already beset by endemic problems such as, amongst many others, the lack of new-build properties and developable land in the country’s major cities, excessive administrative planning regulations, the difficulty for younger generations of workers to access housing and, ultimately, a sector that is the constant subject of politically motivated polarisation.
It was precisely the residential rental sector that was affected by the most recent failure to ratify a Royal Decree-Law (on that occasion, Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 of 14 December, which was not ratified in the vote of 22 January 2019, although subsequently ‘rescued’ by Royal Decree-Law 7/2019 of 1 March on urgent measures regarding housing and rent), which provides us with a relevant legal reference for analysing a question being raised in legal circles in our country: could the non-ratification of Royal Decree-Law-Law 8/2026 mean that the extension of a tenancy agreement with an expiry date no later than 31 December 2027, duly requested by a tenant during its term, but for agreements expiring after its non-ratification, is not binding on the parties?
The aforementioned legal precedents relate to the non-ratification of Royal Decree-Laws between 1978 and 1982, which, however, do not concern tenancy agreements; we shall therefore focus on attempting to apply to the non-ratification of Royal Decree-Law8/2026 the criteria established by the Spanish courts regarding the ratification of Royal Decree-Law 21/2018.
We venture to suggest that our analysis does not coincide with that of many reputable legal professionals and judges from the highest courts who, to our knowledge, have expressed themselves in favour of answering in the affirmative to the question that forms the premise of this brief legal note.
Notwithstanding the above, our intention is essentially to contribute some ideas aimed at enriching the ongoing debate and the one which, we suspect, will continue in the future—perhaps not so far in the future, given the latest political news.
In our defence against any potential doctrinal discrepancies, we would say, in any case, that we have not yet been able to find a detailed legal justification for the view that a request for the extension of leases expiring on 31 December 2027 is not binding on a landlord, provided that the request was received by the landlord whilst Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 still in force, a position that would surely coincide with the target audience of our professional activity, but which we cannot defend even so.
Indeed, a few years ago, the failure to ratify Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 and the subsequent approval of Royal Decree-Law 7/2019 led to the coexistence of up to four different legal regimes in just four months, something unprecedented in the history of the Urban Leases Act which, for legal professionals, forced us to memorise at the time (and to rely on the Official State Gazette now) the dates 18 December 2018, 24 January 2019 and 5 March 2019.
At that time, too, we found ourselves engaged in a legally stimulating exercise: an in-depth examination of the effects of the non-ratification of Royal Decree-Laws, involving an analysis of Article 86.2 of the Spanish Constitution and the well-known ‘ex nunc’ /’from now on’ (rather than ‘from never’, although we do like the more traditional expression ‘immediate lapse of the provision’); as opposed to ‘ex tunc’/’from then on’ in the case of non-ratified Royal Decree-Laws.
And that is why the interpretation proposed by a significant and reputable section of the Spanish legal sector does not quite sit right with what we are examining here: if it does not exist from now on (the moment the non-ratification takes effect), it did exist, as published and in no other way, until now.
In other words, the text of Articles 1 and 2 of Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 is explicit in identifying the contracts affected by the measures it establishes when it refers to ‘lease contracts with an expiry date no later than 31 December 2027’.
Whilst the regulation is in force, and once the request for an extension has been communicated (Article 1) or negotiations have commenced for an agreement on the rent renewal index (Article 2), those measures are binding on the landlord in their own terms, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, and the landlord may be obliged to accept them.
This is because the contractual effects of the parties’ acts under the unratified Royal Decree-Law must be binding on them (ex nunc effect of non-ratification), whether they are intended to create them (as in the case of contracts entered into between 18 December 2018 and 24 January 2019), to novate them (as would be the case with Royal Decree-Law 8/2026), or even to terminate them.
We shall attempt to support this legal opinion on the basis of three citations from judgments of Provincial Courts in the absence of judgments from the highest Court, even if this means shooting ourselves in the foot, an expression that is most apt here.
In this regard, we may cite the Provincial Court of Barcelona (AP Barcelona, Section 4, Judgment of 29 March 2023, No. 213/2023, Appeal No. 334/2022, Second Legal Ground) which, in ruling on the duration of a contract entered into prior to Royal Decree-Law 21/2018, it states that ‘It follows from the foregoing that, unless there is an agreement between the parties (which, in the case under consideration, is not on the record), the minimum term of a lease agreement must be determined in accordance with the wording of Article 9.1 of the LAU (EDL 1994/18384) at the time of its conclusion, a fact which has also been noted in numerous judgments of this 4th Section of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, such as those of 28 September 2022 or 23 December 2022.’
Similarly, the Provincial Court of Valencia (AP Valencia, Section 8, Judgment of 8 October 2025, No. 536/2025, Appeal No. 794/2023), which states in its second legal ground, reproducing the transitional provision of Royal Decree-Law 18/2021, that ‘lease agreements subject to Law 29/1994 of 24 November on Urban Leases (EDL 1994/18384), entered into prior to the entry into force of this Royal Decree- , shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the legal regime applicable to them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where the parties so agree and provided that this is not contrary to the provisions of the law, pre-existing contracts may be adapted to the legal regime established in this Royal Decree-Law.’
And we have perhaps left the most explanatory one for last: AP Valladolid, 1st Section, 25 April 2024, No. 267/2024, Rec. 666/2023, in its third legal ground:
‘Subsequently, Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 of 14 December (EDL 2018/129627), BOE 18/12/2018, which came into force on 19 December of that year, and which was repealed by the Resolution of the Congress of Deputies dated 22 January 2019, which came into force on 24 January 2019 (BOE-2019-799).
Subsequently, Royal Decree-Law 7/2019 of 1 March (EDL 2019/5763) came into force on 6 March 2019, establishing in its First Transitional Provision that contracts entered into prior to its entry into force shall continue to be governed by the regime applicable to them.
With regard to the minimum duration of the lease, a requirement which must be met for the plaintiff’s claim to be upheld, given that the contract was signed on 30 January 2019, reference must be made to the aforementioned Resolution of the Congress of Deputies, as it entered into force on 24 January 2019, but that Resolution was limited, for the purposes relevant here, to expressly repealing the aforementioned Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 (EDL 2018/122772) (which established a minimum duration), but did not establish a minimum duration for the contract; therefore, Articles 9 and 10 of the LAU, as amended by the aforementioned Act 4/2013, as transcribed above, must be applied to the present case; consequently, the legal requirement of a minimum notice period of thirty days for notification of the intention not to renew the lease is met, and the legal requirement of a minimum duration of three years, established in Articles 9 and 10 of the LAU, as transcribed above, is also met.
All of this is in light of the fact that, although the date of notification of the intention not to renew and the date of termination of the contract are subsequent to the entry into force of Royal Decree-Law 7/2019 of 1 March (EDL 2019/5763), as previously indicated, the First Transitional Provision of this Royal Decree-Law 7/2019 (EDL 2019/5763) provides that previous contracts shall continue to be governed by the regime applicable to them; and therefore, insofar as is relevant here, specifically with regard to the matter in dispute concerning the minimum duration for the purposes of meeting the requirement to give notice of the intention not to renew, Articles 9 and 10 of the LAU, as amended by Law 4/2013.’
It should be noted that our Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 contains no transitional provisions whatsoever, given that, by its very nature, it consists of specific measures to extend the duration of certain tenancy agreements or to limit rent review indices. Thus, by its very nature, a transitional provision is not necessary, as this is superseded by the specific identification of the contracts that may be affected at the tenant’s discretion: those due to expire between the entry into force of the Royal Decree-Law and 31 December 2027 (prior to that date).
It is indeed clear from the extracted judgments that legal relationships arising under the Royal Decree-Law currently in force produce full legal effects. These effects are not limited to the date on which the legislative instrument is subsequently not ratified, as if some form of nullity were in operation (Article 6.3 of our Civil Code), since non-ratification affects only the validity of the instrument and does not nullify the effect that the provision has already had on situations arising under its authority, unlike nullity, which entails original or ex tunc ineffectiveness.
And this is the point we wish to emphasise: we do not understand why, with regard to the creation of obligations for the entire duration of a contract, from its inception, we must maintain the purity of the non-ratified text in the case of Royal Decree-Law 21/2018, and not allow the creation of effects for the remainder of a lease agreement extended during the validity of Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 on account of its subsequent non-ratification.
We humbly believe that this regulation exists for a (very brief) period of time, but the effects of the relationships it modifies must endure over time, just as the regulations governing tenancy agreements signed on 31 December 2018 endure.
We also humbly understand that the rule is what it is, and its text is what it is. No article or provision of the rule details its limited effects being conditional upon its subsequent ratification.
Finally, the judgment of the Valladolid Provincial Court adds a nuance regarding notifications which, although not identical to our Royal Decree-Law 8/2026, does merit a comment: this Royal Decree-Law (8/2026) establishes a method for imposing extensions or limitations on rent adjustments at the tenant’s request. It seems logical to think, and this is an interesting argument for perhaps another brief legal note, that it is sufficient for the tenant to have notified their landlord of the measure sought for their joint contract whilst the Royal Decree-Law is in force, and that the landlord’s delay in accepting the tenant’s request will not mean that, if the provision is not ratified, the legal provisions on term and rent review set out in Royal Decree-Law 8/2026 cannot apply, without prejudice to the need to seek judicial assistance after its non-ratification and to the effect of any limitation periods for such action, which are unlikely in this market.
Co-authors: Ángel Lavín Martínez y Juan Gonzalo Franch Quiralte
******
More information:
Lupicinio International Law Firm
C/ Villanueva 29
28001 Madrid
P: +34 91 436 00 90
