Tenant protection

The Supreme Court (TS) has rejected the claim of a " large landlord " who requested that the State compensate him for the damages that, according to him, were caused by the legal cap on rent increases during 2022.

The conflict arises with RDL 6/2022, which was initially in force between 31-3-2022 and 30-6-2022, and which was later extended until 31-12-2022 by RDL 11/2022 and RDL 20/2022. During that period, the regulation set a limit on the updating of rents for rental housing, establishing that, for large landlords, the increase could not exceed the annual variation of the Competitiveness Guarantee Index (IGC), whether or not there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord was not a large landlord, first counted what the parties had agreed, and if there was no agreement, the IGC was equally applied.

The plaintiff argued that this harmed him because in his contracts it had been agreed to update with the CPI, and the IGC, as he argues, cannot exceed 2% (L 2/2015). That is why he argued that the measure was "expropriatory" and that compensation for State patrimonial liability was appropriate (LRJSP art. 32. 3 and 4).

The Supreme Court does not accept it since it argues that there is no expropriation , but a temporary limitation of the owner's powers in housing rentals, compatible with the social function of property (Const art. 33. 2). It also rejects that the Constitution is violated (arts. 33, 86. 1 and 9. 3), emphasizing that the measure sought to protect vulnerable tenants in a context of high inflation (CPI reached 10. 8% due to the war in Ukraine) and that the limitation was proportionate.