Tourist rental
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Single registry of tourist rental housing
The Supreme Court (TS) has partially upheld the appeal of the Valencian Government against RD 1312/2024, which regulates the procedure for the Single rental registry and creates the Single digital window for rentals to collect and exchange data on short-term rentals (such as tourist rentals).
The key point was whether the State had "competence title" competence title registration management arrangement of records essential registration number to be able to advertise the rental on online platforms online platforms The TS also does not accept the argument of
basic equality basic equality minimum conditions minimum conditions , but rather regulates in great detail a national registry designed to provide information to the Administrations. And also rules out that it is a simple basic measure or economic coordination (Const art. 149.1.13), as it overlaps with existing regional registries with comprehensive regulation. It does not even justify it as a state statistic (Const art. 149.1.31), because the registry procedure is not directly related to that purpose.
However, the Supreme Court does admit that the State can regulate the single window digitally, the coordination between windows, and the data transmission obligations of online platforms, including statistical purposes, based on Const arts. 149.1.13 and 149.1.31.
If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any dispute related to a tourist or vacation rental, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions to defend your interestsRELATED CONTENT
-
Elevator maintenance
Nullity of duration clauses and excessive notice in successive contracts This case deals with a typical contract for “preventive maintenance” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were paid; and, on the other, compensation for “breaking” the contract early. The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required a notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive in the case of a consumer (in this case, the community itself). In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of the company, ordering the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs). However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criterion, declaring the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause null and abusive. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are invalid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, the duration and notice clauses are considered null, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed.
-
Urban leases
Does a reversible work by the tenant give the owner the right to terminate the contract?
-
Urban Leases
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.