Impact of the Constitutional Court Ruling on the Requirements for Admitting Possession Recovery Claims

The Constitutional Court has partially upheld the appeal of unconstitutionality lodged by 136 deputies from 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 Court examined various issues, including potential overreach by the State in exercising its powers to regulate urban planning and civil matters, possible encroachment on local autonomy, and alleged breaches of constitutional rights such as property rights and the right to effective judicial protection. The focus here is on Sections 2 and 6 of Law 12/2023 of 24 May, on the right to housing.

These sections introduced amendments to the Civil Procedure Act, establishing additional requirements for the admissibility of claims for possession recovery. Specifically, large property holders were required to provide evidence regarding whether the defendant was in a state of economic vulnerability.

The appellants argued that such obligations infringed upon 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 access to justice for claimants.

The obligation to obtain a certificate from the competent authority verifying the defendant's economic vulnerability, as a precondition for filing a claim, was deemed disproportionate and unreasonable. This information could be substantiated by the defendant themselves during their response to the claim. Similarly, the requirement to provide evidence of mandatory conciliation aimed not at avoiding litigation but at executing social and housing protection responsibilities by the competent authorities, which are external to judicial proceedings. These tasks could be carried out by competent services based on the defendant's personal and social circumstances without interfering with the judicial process.

After conducting a thorough analysis, the Court concluded that the contested measures were neither reasonable nor proportionate. It determined that the requirement imposed on the claimant failed to meet constitutional standards for effective judicial protection under a proportionality framework. It also found that obliging large property holders to prove the defendant's vulnerability effectively preempted their protection by conditioning the admissibility of the action, imposing excessive burdens on the claimants, and unjustifiably complicating the exercise of their right to effective judicial protection.

Moreover, the Court noted that these measures could result in undue delays in judicial proceedings, adversely affecting the principle of legal certainty.

Consequently, the Court partially upheld the appeal of unconstitutionality, declaring Articles 439.7 and 655 bis 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, added by the fifth final provision of Law 12/2023, unconstitutional and null.

The declaration of unconstitutionality of these provisions will enable property owners to assert their possession recovery rights with fewer obstacles, without undermining the rights of those in situations of vulnerability.

Finally, it is worth noting that the judgment is pending publication in the Official State Gazette.