Can the community of owners of your building prohibit you from having a pet? The answer, as is usual when it comes to legislation and clash of rights, is a huge ‘it depends’. The Horizontal Property Law (LHP) says little about it and the animal welfare standard It even remembers that owners are obliged to keep their dogs, cats and other animals “integrated into the family nucleus.” Now, a sentence dictated in Galicia reminds us that the subject is much more complex and has chiaroscuros.
There, in fact, a man has lost the legal battle to live with his poodle.
Legal pulse in Galicia. Coexistence in neighborhood communities is not always easy. even less when a dog, cat or any other pet that can cause noise or dirty common areas is added to the equation.
In a building in Nigrán (province of Pontevedra) these frictions have led to a legal pulse between the owner of a flat and the rest of his neighbors that has had an unexpected outcome: justice has endorsed that the latter (the board of owners) have the right to prohibit the former from living with their dog.
It matters when and how. The sentence Galician, yes, responds to a case with very specific particularities. To understand it, we have to go back to 2010, when the residents of the property unanimously approved, in an ordinary general meeting, to prohibit the presence of any animal on the floors and common areas of the building. They only left one exception: guide dogs.
In 2011, that decision was ratified as an internal rule that was incorporated into the community’s statutes, where it remains today.
In theory, the pet ban didn’t cause any more problems until a few years ago, when one of the families in the building acquired a poodle. This led to the rest of the neighbors holding an extraordinary general meeting at the end of 2023 to revalidate the 2010 rule and reiterate the veto on pets. The dog’s owner did not like the decision, who went to court in March 2024 for what he considered an “abusive” rule and contrary to the Animal Welfare Law.
Crossover of arguments. The Nigrán lawsuit is interesting because it demonstrates the legal intricacies that these types of disputes can have, but it is equally important to understand that the ruling responds to a very specific case.
To begin with, there is a key fact that is responsible for highlighting the magistrate herself in her order: the neighbor in disagreement knew “the existence, content and purpose” of the community rule long before acquiring the poodle. What’s more, if the pet ban was approved in 2010, it was partly at the request of his father, who already lived in the property. In short: the affected party was informed of the ban.
What did he then claim before the judge? That, in his opinion, the legal context of 2010 is not the same as that of 2024, when he presented his complaint. And it is not, he insists, because in September 2023 The Animal Welfare Law (LBA) came into force, a rule that recognizes pets as “sentient” beings.
Did you convince the magistrate? No. Perhaps the legislation on pets is different today than in 2010, but the Vigo judge in charge of the lawsuit has seen it clearly: The LBA does not overthrow the board’s agreement. “It does not establish an absolute and unlimited right to own pets nor does it automatically repeal any community provision that regulates or limits said tendency.”
“It does not eliminate the possibility of establishing legitimate limitations when they respond to reasons of coexistence, health or general interest,” he emphasizes.
What exactly does the LBA say? The rule, which came into force three years ago, points out that owners of pets must “keep them integrated into the family nucleus, whenever possible due to their species, in good health and hygiene”, although it also specifies that when this is not feasible (due to their size or species) their caregivers must find them “appropriate accommodation”.
He same article of the LBA makes it clear in any case that pet owners are obliged to adopt “the necessary measures” so that they do not cause “annoyance, danger, threats or damage” to other people, animals or property, which includes, among other things, preventing them from soiling public spaces.
And the Horizontal Property Law? When it comes to coexistence and blocks of neighbors, the reference Bible is another norm, something older: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). It does not address the issue of pets directly, but it does provide a series of important guidelines.
The main one appears in article 7.2, which reminds that neither the owner of an apartment nor its tenants, if any, can carry out “activities prohibited in the statutes, harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities.” In cases like this it can end in trial.
The value of the statutes. The ruling of the Vigo court recalls the weight of the decisions adopted in neighborhood associations, the statutes and the importance of the rules of coexistence being duly registered in the Property Registry. Also the nuance of whether the veto on pets is before or after a neighbor gets one and whether or not he knows this in advance.
In any case the Galician magistrate slide An important fact: the LBA “does not establish an unrestricted right to the presence of animals anywhere.”
Images | Charles Puaud (Unsplash) and Zhen Yao (Unsplash)
In Xataka | Your cat asks you to cuddle and then bites you. It’s not evil, it’s that you don’t understand its signs
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings