Constitutional Court Rules Unconstitutional Provisions in Catalonia Housing Law
The Constitutional Court (TC) has issued a significant ruling, partially upholding the appeal made by the People's Party (PP) regarding the Catalonia housing law of 2022. The court declared several provisions of this law unconstitutional, particularly the article that mandates offering social rental options before pursuing judicial claims. The decision was reported by the court this Wednesday.
The unconstitutionality appeal was prompted by over fifty deputies from the PP in the Congress of Deputies, who challenged the entirety of Catalonia's Parliament Law 12022, which amends Laws 182007, 242015, and 42016 to combat the housing emergency.
In the ruling, delivered by progressive magistrate María Luisa Segoviano, the Court dismissed the complaint against the overall law on jurisdictional grounds. However, the ruling concluded that the challenged provisions infringe upon state competencies regarding procedural legislation and contractual obligations, thus leading to their declaration as unconstitutional and null.
Specific provisions affected include Article 13, which alters Article 52 f of Law 182007 concerning the right to housing. This provision, according to the court, violates the principle of property rights by instituting noncompliance penalties based on the failure to offer a social rental proposal before any judicial action.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights a similar violation in Article 12, part of which expands the obligation to present a social rental proposal before certain judicial claims related to mortgage debts and evictions. This rule also includes directives for suspending such procedures if the rental offer isn't documented.
The transitional provision of the law was also noted by the court for extending the social rental offer requirement to cases initiated prior to the law's enactment, which it deemed unconstitutional.
In addition, the court indicated that provisions related to the renewal of social rental contracts in Article 11 (amending Article 10 of Law 242015) were unconstitutional. This judgment extends to transitional provisions requiring renewal for cases predating the law's enforcement. Moreover, Article 7 was cited for unlawfully imposing strict liability for actions committed by others in home purchasing scenarios, contradicting the fundamental principle of culpability.
While the Court recognized the unconstitutionality of several provisions, it also dismissed other complaints on the grounds of a lack of jurisdictional or substantial violations. The ruling clarifies that its effects will not impact already established situations and that the declarations of unconstitutionality and nullity will be effective going forward, except for Article 7, which relates to sanctions.
The stipulation laid out by Article 401 of LOTC notes that unconstitutionality rulings will not permit the re-examination of cases concluded with a final judgment based on the laws found unconstitutional, except in specific criminal or contentious administrative contexts.
In contrast to the ruling, conservative magistrates from the court, including Ricardo Enríquez, Enrique Arnaldo, Concepción Espejel, César Tolosa, and José María Macías, have announced their intention to file a special vote against this judgment, highlighting ongoing divisions within the court's ideological perspectives on housing law and property rights.
Related Sources: