The Congress of Deputies repealed this Tuesday the Government's decree that obliged landlords to extend rental contracts that expired until December 31, 2027, for up to two years when requested by the tenant. The rule, moreover, stipulated that in those cases the price increase could not exceed 2%.
The measure has been in effect for just over a month. During that period, many tenants asked to take advantage of that extraordinary extension, and now the repeal has raised doubts about the effect of those applications already submitted.
Doubts about the extensions requested while the rule was in effect
One of the main unknowns is what happens to the tenants who requested the extension within the period in which the decree continued to have effects. For Rosa Maria Garcia Teruel, professor of Civil Law at the University of Barcelona, those requests must be maintained.
"Tenants who have requested this two-year extension of the rental agreement and whose request has reached the landlord will obtain the extension" - Rosa Maria Garcia Teruel, University of Barcelona
The jurist also maintains that, if a judicial route is opened, the temporary application of the rule may prove decisive. In her opinion, during that month and a bit the decree was fully applicable and that reinforces the position of those who requested the extension within that framework.
"It is possible that it ends up in the courts, but the judicial authority will have no doubt because in this month and something it has been applied" - Rosa Maria Garcia Teruel, Universitat de Barcelona
Legal clash between the repealed decree and the lease law
Not all experts see the scenario with the same clarity. Maridalia Rodríguez, doctor of Law and professor of Civil Law at UIC Barcelona, considers the future application of an already repealed decree to be complex, even if the request had been made when it was still in force.
"I see the application of a repealed decree that is projected into the future as complex" - Maridalia Rodríguez, UIC Barcelona
Rodríguez recalls that the decree affected unexpired contracts and warns of a significant clash of rights. On the one hand, that of the person invoking the extension under a rule in force at the time of requesting it. On the other, that of the person defending their rights under the Urban Leases Law.
From his point of view, there is not yet a consolidated doctrine that allows a closed legal solution to be safely anticipated. That is why he understands that the last word could end up in the hands of the judges.
"There is no strong jurisprudence to be sure from a legal point of view of what the concrete solution is" - Maridalia Rodríguez, UIC Barcelona
The Government asks for calm and assumes there may be litigation
The Minister of Housing and Urban Agenda, Isabel Rodríguez, admitted this Wednesday that all of this could end up in the courts. Even so, she sent a message of calm and defended that the people who requested the extension while the decree was in force have been covered by the decree-law.
The minister considers that, if there are finally litigations, the courts will align with the right to housing and with the philosophy of the norm. She has also made the telephone number 047 available to those affected to resolve doubts and receive advice.
The repeal went ahead with votes against shielding the extensions
The measure that intended to shield these extensions was defeated with the votes against from PP, Vox, and Junts. From there, the focus remains on contracts whose extension was already requested during the brief validity of the decree and on how owners and tenants will respond in each case.
The immediate scenario remains open. While some jurists argue that timely submitted applications must be respected, others believe that the lack of an already existing regulatory coverage may lead to lawsuits. Everything points to the courts being the ones to ultimately clarify the real scope of extensions that, despite having been born under a temporary rule, affect contracts that extend for years.