law

The new law puts an end to one of the last tobacco subterfuges in Spain

by

Some customs survive by pure inertia. In Spain, one of them consists of going out to a terrace, ordering a beer and assuming that someone, sooner or later, will light a cigarette half a meter from your table. It doesn’t matter that you are eating, that there is a baby carriage and a mother breastfeeding. It doesn’t matter if the smoke reaches you before the waiter does. So far: the Council of Ministers has given the green light to the project of the largest anti-smoking reform since the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in 2011. To exemplify the power and scope of this measure: in Madrid alone more than 6,300 bars, almost 64,000 tables and more than 200,000 chairs on terraces. That’s a lot of money. The terrace will no longer be a shared ashtray. The most visible measure affects one of the great symbols of Spanish hospitality: the terraces. When the law comes into force after its parliamentary processing, smoking will not be allowed on the terraces of bars and restaurants. Nor vaping. The Government equates e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches with conventional tobacco in most restrictions. The Ministry of Health survey said, STUDIES 2025that the prevalence of daily smokers among adolescents was registering all-time lowssince counting began in 1994. However, it seems that the problem lies more in a distortion of the samples. The danger of vaping. The Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (semFyc) warned, however, that the problem, rather than disappearing, has moved: 90.5% of underage smokers use both vapers and conventional cigarettes. Many young people, in fact, They do not smoke other cigarettes that are not electronicmore in line with other lifestyles and appearances cleaner and more modern. An alternative, clearly, defective. Although the legislation protected the interior of the premises but left a huge legal vacuum in the exterior spaces, this has now ended, understanding that a risk exists and persists, especially for children, pregnant women and hospitality workers who spend full days breathing that environment. Now the inn will have to face this new reality which leaves the local smoker without margin and equates it with that of Sweden, the only country in the EU where smoking is prohibited in public spaces. Tobacco also disappears from campus. The reform promoted by Minister Mónica García seeks to expand smoke-free spaces to marquees, music festivals, and outdoor or non-open-air events (in addition to theaters, cinemas, and any closed venue) and, for the first time, expressly prohibits smoking by minors. It is a cultural change. And there is more: the text, which modifies Law 28/2005, also adds as cigarette-free spaces the beaches, both sea and river, sports centers and public swimming pools, the network of National Parks and the work vehicle itself, as long as you are on professional duty. Denormalize tobacco consumption. Or so the norm says: that smoking stops being part of the daily landscape. Yeah you see smokingit is more likely that you end up smoking. Because if a teenager spends his entire life watching smoking on terraces, at concerts, at universities or in swimming pools, he ends up perceiving it as normal behavior. Reducing this presence also reduces the social attractiveness of cigarettes, according to the scientific evidence supported by the Ministry. “The reality of smoking has changed and this reform pursues a very clear objective: moving towards a tobacco-free generation,” said the Minister of Health, Mónica García. And the data seems to support his claim. The big news: the minors. Until now, the law prevented the sale of tobacco to minors. Now it also prohibits them from consuming it. It may seem like a semantic difference, but it has important legal consequences. The text incorporates an express prohibition on smoking, vaping or using nicotine pouches as a minor. The sanctions will fall on those legally responsible when appropriate and seek to reinforce the preventive message rather than collection. Of course, the reform modifies the sanctioning regime and establishes fines from 200 euros for these infractions. In the case of minors, the financial responsibility will fall on the parents or legal guardians, as always. But the project also foresees that this economic sanction can be replaced by work for the benefit of the community, with a clear educational and preventive focus, similar to what already exists in other regulations aimed at minors. Images | Pexels (Eyüpcan Timur, Helena Lopes) In Xataka | Experts agree: “Regular physical exercise makes the difference in quitting smoking” IN Xataka | It’s never too late to quit smoking: the lungs have an incredible capacity to regenerate

In the midst of controversy over the Nietos Law, the Argentine songs at the gates of the final

by

That a soccer team qualifies to play the final of a World Cup is cause for celebration. Of wild joy, even. Spain and Argentina know it well, the two countries that will compete this Sunday the fifa cup at MetLife Stadium. On both sides of the Atlantic there are debates about the quality of one or another squad and what the party will be like is planned depending on whether the star of 2026 ends up in the La Roja or La Roja shirt. albiceleste. However, ironies of the king of sport, that goodrollism It has been marred by a succession of songs launched at the least appropriate place and time. What has happened? If you live in Madrid or Malaga perhaps you have seen it in person; If not, it is likely that has reached you through Choirs, jumps, flags. The expected. So far nothing controversial. The problem is what could be heard during those celebrations. With the 1-2 score against England still fresh, some Argentines chanted songs like “Spain is afraid” or “Spanish is the one who doesn’t bounce!” It did not happen in all cities, but the fact that proclamations like this were sung in such emblematic places as the Plaza Mayor in Madrid or Larios Street in Malaga did not go unnoticed on the networks… Nor did it go unnoticed by newspapers such as OK Diary either Digital Freedomwho dedicated chronicles to him. “They have little shame,” the latter concluded in one piece halfway between the news and the editorial. @k.farias8 The Argentines sing “He who does not jump is Spanish” in the heart of Malaga 🇪🇸 The world final is coming. #worldcup #Argentina #Spain #world ♬ original sound – kf8 “So that?” Proof of how far the matter has escalated is that Wednesday’s chants have not only generated reactions from Spanish fans or media. It has also been done by some Argentines who do not feel comfortable with the reaction of their compatriots and have wanted to distance themselves. The clearest example is that of Eduardo Patituccian Argentine sports journalist who has uploaded a video calling for harmony and responsibility. “He who does not jump is Spanish. For what? The Spanish is the one who gives you work, the one who opened the doors for you…”, warns Patitucci, for whom “it is one thing to sing against England or other countries” and another against the one “that feeds you.” What did he say? “It is the country to which you came to seek to evolve, because I do not believe that any Argentine has been forced to leave Argentina. We only come here to earn a living, to have a better future, to seek to grow… It seems to me that ‘The Spaniard is afraid’ yes, that’s it for the picaresque; but the thing about ‘He who does not leave is Spanish’ or directly saying shit in the Plaza Mayor and other parts of Spain does not seem correct to me at all,” the journalist continues Argentinean. “Then we complain about other nationalities when they go out and commit atrocities. Let’s not be like the rest. To the Spanish, respect and affection.” @nachopla12 The World Cup final in Madrid is starting to heat up: 🇪🇸 Spain – Argentina 🇦🇷 ♬ original sound – Nacho Pla Is it just the chants? No. It’s also the context. Perhaps at another time the controversy would have been less, but the reality is that now it has arisen against a very specific backdrop: with the foreign population in historical levels and immigration policy converted into a topic of ideological dispute. First for the “national priority”a concept that VOX has championed when it has had to sit down to negotiate with the PP; second, with the “Grandchildren Law” and the crossing of accusations that has unleashed between PP and PSOE. Does that matter? It is certainly a factor to take into account. Especially because this last topic has greatly marked the political chronicle of recent weeks and its main protagonist is Latin American migration. Let us remember: the “Grandchildren Law”, which is actually an additional provision of the Democratic Memory Law of 2022, is a way that allows Spanish nationality to be recognized for the descendants of those people who had to leave our country during the Civil War or the Franco dictatorship for political, ideological, religious or sexual orientation reasons. For the Government it is a matter of “reparation and justice” historical. For the PP it is pure “electoral engineering” in the run-up to the general elections. What does it have to do with Argentina? A lot. Argentina is one of the countries that has shown the most interest in the door opened by the “Grandchildren Law.” Although its administrative process has not yet been completed, it is estimated that almost a million of Argentines has requested nationality under this regulatory framework. Not bad if we take into account that Foreign Affairs estimates that they have started the procedures 2.4 million of descendants of Spaniards throughout the world. That data, added to that of the tens of thousands of immigrants of Argentine nationality who already reside in Spain, according to the INE, adds more controversy to Wednesday’s songs. The unknown now is what will happen on Sunday depending on whether the coveted FIFA Cup is won by Spain or Argentina. Images | TikTok In Xataka | It is possible that today you will hear your neighbor sing Spain’s goal before you: the delay of streaming compared to DTT

This is what the Horizontal Property Law says about it

by

“Football is football”, said Serbian midfielder and coach Vujain Boškov. It may be a bit obscure, but the phrase captures well the magnetism of the beautiful sport and its ability to mobilize an entire country. It comes with walking around any city in Spain these days. No matter where you are, north, south, east or west, coast or mountain, chances are you will find red flags hanging from the balconies, a spontaneous way to support the National Team. But… Can they fine you for doing so? Fines for hanging the flag? Exact. If you open Google and search on the topic you will find a good handful of articles that, for weeks, warn that hanging the Spanish flag from your balcony can be expensive. It is even likely that some of those articles have reached you through networks. The formulation changes, but its holders They are categorical and leave the same threat, sanctions of several thousand euros: “The Horizontal Property Law confirms it: hanging the Spanish flag on the balcony during the World Cup can lead to fines for the owners of up to €3,000.” And is that true? Most of these posts refer to the Horizontal Property Law (LPH), the ‘bible’ in everything that refers to coexistence between neighbors in buildings, so the easiest thing is to go directly to it. In the standard we see several articles about what can and cannot be done in homes and common areas, including facades, but there is no direct reference to the placement of a flag. And even less so if it simply hangs from the balcony. To be more precise, in the seventh article (point ‘1’) the LPH says: “The owner of each apartment or premises may modify the architectural elements, facilities or services of that one when it does not undermine or alter the security of the building, its general structure, its configuration or external state, or harm the rights of another owner, and must previously report such works to the person who represents the community. In the rest of the property he/she may not make any alterations.” Does it say anything else? Yes. In the article 9 The LPH also leaves an interesting indication: the owners must “respect the general facilities of the community and other common elements, whether they are for general use or exclusive to any of the owners, whether or not they are included in their apartment or premises, making appropriate use and avoiding at all times causing damage.” The rule reminds us that every owner has a responsibility: “Maintain his own apartment or premises and private facilities in good condition, in terms that do not harm the community or other owners, compensating for any damage caused by his carelessness or people for whom he is responsible.” Does a flag represent an alteration? That’s the key. The owner of a home cannot modify the aesthetics of the façade, but it is questionable whether the simple placement of a flag can be interpreted as such. I admitted it recently the government in damn.es: “In the case of a flag, it can hardly be considered an alteration of the façade because it is not a structural element.” The key is how that flag is displayed. If the homeowner makes a “facade modification”, drilling or installing a rigid and permanent structure, such as a fixed pole that protrudes, there could be a conflict, but the reality is that in the vast majority of cases that circumstance does not occur. People simply hang flags from balconies or windows with zip ties, clips, or other temporary fasteners. In fact, it is not the first time that flags have been hung during a World Cup and most disappear after the tournament. Mystery then? No. Beyond the LPH, there are other regulations that could come into play, such as municipal ordinances or community bylaws. Let’s start with the latter. Communities can provide themselves with internal rules that regulate coexistence and what can be done within a property, but these guidelines are by no means omnipotent. Guillermo Cerdeira, professor of Civil Law, explains for example to Newtral that a neighborhood agreement prohibiting the installation of flags would likely be “illegal.” In any case, if there is a conflict with the community of owners, that does not have to result in fines either. If there is a disparity in criteria as to whether or not it alters the aesthetics of the façade, it would go to trial and, at worstthe neighbor who installed the flag would have to remove it, pay for the necessary repairs to the façade (if any) and face legal costs. What about local ordinances? It is the other factor in the equation. Especially because not all properties are the same. Regardless of what the LPH or the community statutes say, a newly built building in a modern residential neighborhood is not in exactly the same situation as an old property located in a historic center with heritage protection. In the latter case, modifying a façade can lead to sanctions of several thousand euros. That is in fact the reference taken by the articles that talk about sanctions, not the LPH. In any case the focus of the problem would be the same: the structural modification of the façade. So much damn.es as Newtral They have spoken with several city councils to find out if they have specific ordinances that regulate this issue (including Madrid and Barcelona) and the answer is the same: no. What do they say exactly? “As long as it does not involve a fixed installation or an alteration of the façade, it does not generally constitute a municipal administrative infraction,” Barcelona clarifies. “Any conflict related to the use of common elements of the building corresponds to the private sphere.” This is not the first time that Spanish town councils have been forced to talk about the issue. It happened last October, coinciding with Hispanidad, when a hoax circulated that there was fined 600 euros hang the … Read more

Whether or not the Horizontal Property Law allows defaulters to enjoy the pool

by

Friday in mid-July. Any city in Spain. Five in the afternoon. The thermometer around 35ºC and there is no way to cool off at home, so you decide to put on your swimsuit, throw a towel over your shoulder and go down to the community pool, where some neighbors have been soaking for hours. Everything is going great until suddenly your expression goes wrong. To you and the rest of those present. The first defaulter who has not paid his installments for several months has just crossed the fence. Can it be there? Do you have the right to enjoy the pool despite your debt? Of swimming pools and defaulters. In 2015, the General Council of Associations of Property Administrators surveyed the financial health of the communities of property owners in Spain and found that a percentage more than respectable (42.8%) had at least one neighbor who was not up to date with their payments. Since then it is very likely that the ‘picture’ has changed, but that does not mean that the communities have been freed from the scourge of non-payments. weigh all the resources that neighborhood associations have to combat them, there are still people who do not meet their quotas. And that in summer leaves a thorny question: Can the rest of the owners veto access to the pool for those defaulters? It is not a minor issue. A Google search arrives to verify that it is a doubt that arises frequently in agencies. The ‘bible’ of the communities. When it comes to housing blocks and neighborhood coexistence, there is a ‘bible’ of reference: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). It contains rights, duties and, in general, the legislative framework to which neighborhood communities must adhere. Also in cases of non-payment. In fact, the standard dedicates an entire section (article 21) to defining the “preventive measures” that property owners can apply to deal with defaulters. “The owners’ meeting may agree on dissuasive measures against late payment for the time in which said situation remains, such as the establishment of interests higher than the legal interest or the temporary deprivation of the use of services or facilities, provided that they cannot be considered abusive or disproportionate or that affect the habitability of the properties,” states the first point of article 21 of the LPH. “These measures may in no case be retroactive and may be included in the statutes.” Doesn’t it say anything about swimming pools? Not specifically. Just as it does not do so with other community facilities that exist in some buildings, such as gyms or tennis and paddle tennis courts. However, in that article the LPH slips a few key ideas. The main one is that it recognizes that neighboring communities can adopt certain “deterrent measures.” The second, that these do not have carte blanche. There are certain limitations that should never be skipped. To begin with, the LPH always talks about “agreements”, not improvised prohibitions. It may seem like an unimportant detail, but it is not. It is not enough for the administrator, president or any other neighbor to decide to punish a defaulter for not being up to date with his payments. Any “deterrent measure” must have the support of the homeowners’ association. The LPH even slips the possibility of addressing the issue directly in the statutes and rules of coexistence. “Abusive and disproportionate”. The law adds another important nuance. The board can vote on “deterrent measures,” true; but these have red lines. They cannot be extended beyond the duration of the debt and must not make the defaulter’s stay in the building unviable, something that could happen if the board insists on prohibiting the use of elevators, stairs and landings. The Horizontal Property Law is very clear in this regard, it explicitly speaks of “temporary deprivation of the use of services or facilities, provided that they cannot be considered abusive or disproportionate or that they affect habitability.” Does that affect swimming pools? Good question. Difficult answer. Can it be considered “disproportionate” to prevent a neighbor who is not up to date with spills from taking a dip? In general, managers recognize that vetoing common areas is “a controversial issue”. In fact, the photo can change from one case to another, depending on whether or not the matter is regulated in the statutes. “If it is not provided for in the statutes, the case must always be studied individually. The deprivation of rights must be interpreted restrictively and the aforementioned LPH only indicates two sanctions for defaulters: deprivation of the vote and the possibility of challenge,” slide from a consultancy in Castellón, which also reminds us how difficult it is to translate such a veto into practice. Who and how can prevent a neighbor from getting into the pool? Are the rest of the owners going to do it? Do you have power a watchman to do something like that? Reviewing the jurisprudence. Although not all judicial pronouncements point in exactly the same direction, there are rulings that support communities in favor of vetoing swimming pools for defaulters. The most cited case is a failure published by the Provincial Court of Valencia in May 2016, which concludes that depriving the temporary enjoyment of “an element of a temporary nature”, such as the sports facilities of the property, “cannot be understood as an agreement contrary to the Law or the statutes, but as an agreement that remains within the scope of the internal regime rules.” Images | Nick Page (Unsplash) and Brandon Hoogenboom (Unsplash) In Xataka | This summer you might find someone shitting in the pool. It has already happened in 300 Spanish swimming pools

This is how Shenzhen taxi drivers define the new law that gives the green light to more robotaxis in the city

by

In Shenzhen, China, self-driving taxis can already be seen driving on the streets (in fact, We recently rode one), but at the moment they are part of pilot programs and are a minority compared to the thousands of taxis driven by humans. That’s about to change. what’s happening. Since July 1, the Chinese government has approved the deployment of robotaxis in the city of Shenzhen. As we said, there are currently pilot programs such as those of Pony.ai, the taxi we tested, and also of Baidu in specific areas of the city. With the new legislationthese commercial pilot projects can be expanded to the entire city. Taxi drivers against. Logically, taxi drivers oppose this measure. In Financial Times collect the statements of several of these taxi drivers, who describe the measure as “incredibly cruel” and wonder “what will happen to the families who depend on the millions of taxi drivers in China.” Another of these taxi drivers affirms that “it is a capitalist operation, driven by personal profit, that seeks to monopolize the sector.” A saturated market. Being a taxi driver in Shenzhen is not exactly a lucrative job. Around 400,000 drivers work in the city through different platforms such as Didi, the most popular of all. The problem is that there are too many taxi drivers for too few customers and the average is 13 trips a day. Speaking to the Financial Times, one of these taxi drivers claims to work 12 hours a day to earn a salary of 12,000 yuan, about 1,500 euros. Human service vs machines. In an already stressed sector, many taxi drivers are worried that robotaxis will take away even more customers. On the other hand, others are calmer and believe that a robotaxi cannot match the service that a human driver can provide. Furthermore, there is another issue and that is that not all customers will feel comfortable riding in a driverless taxi. It is a very new technology that generates distrust in many people, but that is now. “in a few years, who knows?” says a driver. Automation. It is one of China’s solutions to the unstoppable aging of its population. The UN projections They anticipate China’s population and workforce will decline dramatically between now and 2100, in some scenarios to less than half of their current levels. Given this situation, added to a improvement in working conditions of the workers, we are seeing how factories are filled with robots. The consequence is obvious: more unemployment and an entire generation of young people disconnected from the culture of effort that elevated the country to its status as the factory of the world. You can’t have everything. Image | Amparo Babiloni, Xataka In Xataka | Faced with the inevitable aging of its population, China has made a familiar decision: raise the retirement age

If the question is whether your neighbors can prohibit you from having a dog, the answer is not in the Animal Welfare Law: it is in Vigo

by

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

The Animal Welfare Law is clear about whether dogs can enter bars. And also about the fine for breaking the rule

by

To humans (we know since recently) we like to surround ourselves with pets since long before we we started cultivating the land or the invention of writing. However, they have never played such a relevant role in our homes. The first official statistics On the subject, he estimates that in Spain they live 15 million of pets, more than the entire population of the country under 30 years of age. Only the dogs add up to 7.5. With such a deployment it is normal that more and more people count on them when planning travel or go to a bar. The big question is… Can they pass? Are pets allowed? If you go to Google and type “pets”, “restaurants” and “access” you will find a good handful of publications that talk about whether or not pets can access bars, restaurants, hotels and (in general) private businesses. It stands to reason. First, because in Spain there are more and more pets and every time they are more incorporated in our daily lives. Second, because with the thermometer fooling around with the 30th In much of the country and with clear skies, people increasingly want to make plans outside, stay in a hotel on the beach or go for a drink at a bar. And what is the answer? Depends. As is usually the case when we talk about pets, the ‘bible’ we must turn to in search of answers is the Law 7/2023 on March 28. Said like this, it may not sound familiar to you, but its most popular name surely does: the Animal Welfare Law (LBA), which began to be applied a long time ago. three years. In this specific case we are interested in your article 29which regulates “access with pets to means of transportation, establishments and public spaces.” There the regulatory framework is established and a very simple idea is put forward: as a general rule, pets can enter bars, restaurants and other businesses where food is served, unless otherwise stated. Now, in each case what both the host and the owner of the animal do will greatly influence, so this guideline does not always have to be followed. What does it say about the hoteliers? That they have the right to decide whether or not pets enter their businesses, although if they decide to do the latter and close the doors to them, they must make it very clear from the beginning. And in writing. Basically, Law 07/2023 states that if the owner of a restaurant chooses to ban pets, he must record his decision, warning it on the door in a perfectly visible way. The objective: to avoid surprises for clients or that, once they are seated with their dog, they are asked to leave the premises. What exactly does the law say? The indication that interests us is in the second point of the article 29. And says: “Public and private establishments, hotel accommodations, restaurants, bars and in general any others in which drinks and food are consumed, may facilitate the entry of pets that do not constitute a risk to people, other animals and things, to areas not intended for the preparation, storage or handling of food, without prejudice to the provisions of public health regulations, or municipal ordinances or specific regulations.” “If the entry and stay of the animal is not admitted, they must show a badge indicating this, visible from the outside of the establishment”. Does only the hotelier influence? No. From the LBA comes off that the dog owner also has rights and obligations and that even the latter must comply with certain rules. For example, the previous paragraph emphasizes that the doors of the premises will be open to pets “that do not constitute a risk to people, other animals and things.” And later, in point 5, the same article of the LBA emphasizes that the owners also have responsibilities: “People responsible for pets who can access the transport and establishments and places indicated in the previous sections must take the animal in accordance with the hygienic-sanitary conditions and respecting the security measures determined by the establishment or means of transport itself, as well as specific sectoral legislation.”. What happens in other places? The LBA not only regulates access to restaurants, bars and accommodation. the same article (29) also clarifies that, in general, public and private transport services must “facilitate” the entry of pets as long as they do not represent a threat. However, the ‘photo’ is not the same in all services. Taxi drivers or platforms such as Uber or Cabify can decide “at their discretion” whether or not to accept pets, while the law states that railway, shipping and airline operators must “adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the transportation of animals (…) as long as they are carried out under the access conditions established by each operator, respecting the hygienic-sanitary and safety conditions required by law.” Does it say anything else? Yes. The LBA make it clear also that shelters, refuges, care centers and other places dedicated to caring for people in a vulnerable situation must “make it easier” for their users to access their pets, if they have them. If for whatever reason that is not possible, the same centers must “promote agreements with animal protection entities or shelter projects” so that the pet is not left unattended. It is a fundamental measure to prevent people (homeless people, sick people or victims of abuse, for example) from avoiding going to shelters or residences just so as not to leave their pets helpless. And public buildings? The law points out also that, “unless expressly prohibited,” which must be clearly signposted on the outside of buildings, “pets will be allowed access to public buildings and facilities.” Everything stated in the previous points, of course, does not apply in the case of assistance dogs (for example, those used by the blind) and those that are part of the Armed Forces or State Security Corps. In those cases … Read more

What the Horizontal Property Law says and does not say about fans: when their use becomes a problem

by

With summer just around the corner and part of the country fooling around with the 30thmore and more homes in Spain are surrendering to the ‘pre-summer’ ritual: the fans are installed, the air conditioners are checked and the compulsive search for tips to make the torrid afternoons begins. more bearable at home. Against that backdrop, there is a question that in recent weeks has been circulating on the Internet: What does the law say about ventilators? If my neighbor uses a noisy one, can I have him change it? What if it is my device that causes discomfort? As is usually the case when we talk about housing blocks, the most advisable thing is to resort to the ‘bible’ of neighborhood coexistence, the Horizontal Property Law. What has happened? If you go to Google and search for information about fans and laws, you will come across a few recent articles that, more or less emphatically, warn of “complaints”, “dislikes” or even “sanctions” due to improper use of these appliances. All supposedly based on the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). The reality is somewhat more complicated. It is true that the LPH establishes a regulatory framework that can be applied in cases where the use of a fan causes obvious discomfort, but it is equally true that the LPH does not specifically talk about fans (in fact the guidelines it establishes are very general) and the general ‘picture’ must be completed with other regulations, such as Noise Law or local ordinances. What does the LPH say? The article that interests us most here is the seventh. To be more precise, your section two. In it, the Horizontal Property Law clarifies: “The owner and occupant of the apartment or premises are not allowed to carry out activities in it or in the rest of the property that are prohibited in the statutes, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities.” The pattern is quite general, but as they explain from the Uncibay Abogados office, a persistent, intense noise, perceptible from the rest of the homes and repeated at odd hours could be considered an “annoying activity” and, therefore, be affected by the article 7.2 of the LPH. As for its source, it can be caused by a party, a dog that doesn’t stop barking at night, a neighbor determined to move furniture at dawn… or an old appliance, such as a fan that vibrates and squeaks. What to do in those cases? In general, the LPH explains to us that when “annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illegal activities” occur, it is normal for the president of the community to speak with the problematic neighbor to correct them. The first thing, therefore, is dialogue. If that does not work and the nuisance continues, the homeowners’ meeting must meet and approve more severe measures, such as taking the issue to court. After this procedure, the judge can order “as a precautionary measure” the cessation of the annoying activities. And that would be just the first step. “If the sentence is upheld, it may provide, in addition to the definitive transfer of the prohibited activity and the compensation for damages that may be appropriate, the deprivation of the right to use the home or premises for a period not exceeding three years, depending on the seriousness of the infraction and the damages caused,” clarify the LPH. “If the offender is not the owner, the sentence may declare all rights relating to the home or premises extinguished, as well as its immediate release.” {“videoId”:”x7znesx”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Self-consumption building THIS IS HOW THEY WORK – Solar panels in apartment blocks”, “tag”:”solar”, “duration”:”564″} Are there more rules? Yes, there is more legislation that should be taken into account. For example the Law of Noise (37/2003), the Civil code and local ordinances. The one in Madrid, for example, addresses the issue in its article 46: “The owners or users of radio receivers, television, music equipment, household appliances, air conditioning devices or instruments and, in general, any domestic sound source, must install them and adjust their use, so that they comply with the limitations of this ordinance, in order not to disturb good coexistence.” The same standard details the “sound level limits” and “noise indices” that must be applied in spaces with healthcare, residential, hospitality or educational use, among others. In general, within a home the limit is usually set at 35 decibels during daylight hours, roughly the equivalent of a quiet conversation between two people. If we talk about nights, that barrier extends to 30 dB. If we want to apply it to the use of fans, the conclusion is clear: the law establishes a framework, but it only applies when the device causes obvious and demonstrable discomfort. Images | Nameofmin (Unsplash) and Jason Anderson (Unsplash) In Xataka | If there are elderly people in your building, an elevator can be installed without the board’s approval. The key: the Horizontal Property Law (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news What the Horizontal Property Law says and does not say about fans: when their use becomes a problem was originally published in Xataka by Carlos Prego .

There are more and more guard dogs in Spain. They cost up to 15,000 euros and the law treats them the same as a poodle.

by

Spain has a new symbol of domestic security: the old guard dog, which once lived sadly tied up permanently or surrounding a property, has now returned as a vitamin-rich walking dog. Breeds such as the Cane Corso, the Malinois or the Doberman have found a new home in middle-class family homes and social networks, where footballers, other elite athletes and also influencers exhibiting them has accelerated that trend. Large, strong, robust dogs that do not appear in the list of Potentially Dangerous Breeds Spanish. All with another link in common: they have bought them for the same reason, fear of theft, harassment and insecurity in general. But perception is one thing and what the data says is another. what’s happening. According to data from the Royal Canine Society of Spain, of which El País echoesthe two breeds that have experienced the most growth in the records are the Cane Corso and the Doberman, something confirmed by two kennels of these breeds, the Catalan X-Man and the Madrid The Guardians. Depending on the level of training and pedigree, the prices of these breeds range from 2,000 to more than 15,000 euros. This phenomenon is not unique to the Spanish state: the United Kingdom is experiencing this boomwith the Cane Corso as the star breed. Thus, from 2015 to 2023 their number has quintupled, according to the British Kennel Club. In the United States, the American Pet Products Association documents sustained growth in the acquisition of working and protection breeds since the pandemic. Why is it important. The fact that these dogs are not on the PPP list means that anyone can acquire them without special procedures, which generates a certain ambiguity: they are stronger than average and are used as working dogs, but there is no need to have special training or pass psychotechnics. All dogs need RC insurance from la Animal Welfare Act of 2023but a 45-kilogram Cane Corso trained for guarding has exactly the same legal obligations as a poodle. The law treats them the same because, formally, they are. Obviously it is a good idea to get a trained Cane Corso and take a training course, but the law does not require it. The list of Potentially Dangerous Dogs is the classification of the different states of certain breeds of dogs that, due to their physical conditions, require special handling. For the American Veterinary Medical Associationthe risk of bites has more to do with handling and socialization than with breed. Simply put, it’s not the dog’s fault, it’s the owner’s fault. And a level above the individual, the system that does not filter who can have them. Context. The increase in demand for guard dogs cannot be understood without the feeling of citizen insecurity. The data tells another story: the Statistical Crime Yearbook of the Ministry of the Interior of Spain sample that conventional crime has been declining in the state for years. What is increasing is cybercrime, but a Malinois is of little use against that. The sociologist Luis García Tojar frames it with surgical precision: The purchase of guard dogs is part of the same phenomenon as anti-squatting alarms or the huge consumption of true crime on digital platforms. Media hyperexposure reinforces that availability biasthat is, we overestimate the frequency of what we see or hear most intensely, even though it does not reflect the reality of the statistics. The hatchery business. The guard dog market moves shocking figures. He X-Man owner gives the price range of their cane corso: from 6,500 euros to 15,500 euros. To that we must add maintenance costs, veterinary costs, that recommended insurance and continuous training, a notable investment that is not within everyone’s reach. However, the sector has grown thanks to this demand sponsored by fear and amplified by the visibility of social networks. Within the global pet products and services industry, which exceeded $260 billion in 2023 and growing, the specialized training segment is one of the most added value. Simply put: selling a guard dog is very lucrative. The risks of these guard dogs. A poorly trained guard dog or in the hands of an untrained owner is a real risk. There is solid studies on canine bites and aggression directed at strangers as a function of education and socialization. The problem with these dogs is the human context that surrounds them. Regarding insurance, the situation is more complex than it seems. The Animal Welfare Law 7/2023 requires all dog owners to have civil liability insurance regardless of breed. But the regulation that sets the minimum amounts is still pending approval and standard policies usually exclude dogs trained to bite. We insist, in practice a Cane Corso trained for the guard has the same legal obligations as a poodle: generic insurance, without a license, without accredited training, without any additional requirement that reflects its real capacity to cause harm. Yes, but. That said, it would be unfair to reduce the phenomenon to the consumption of fear. There is legitimate demand ranging from people who know the breed, have experience and assume responsibility to those who have real protection needs such as women who have reported harassment or assault and feel safer with a dog trained to alert. The problem is not the dog or the responsible owner. The thing is that the system does not distinguish between one and the other. There are trainers who filter buyers, reject sales if they detect that the buyer is not prepared and include mandatory training for the owner as part of the process, as Marga Dernoncourt of Los Guardianes explains. It is an ethical and necessary practice, but completely voluntary. In Germanythe European country with the most demanding regulations, states such as Bavaria classify the Cane Corso as a dangerous breed and require authorization, an animal temperament test and specific insurance, and the Doberman falls into a restricted category in several Länder with similar requirements. In Spain, none of these breeds trigger any additional requirements beyond general liability insurance. In … Read more

Brussels has just fined Temu the largest fine in its history with the Digital Services Law: 200 million euros

by

This Thursday, the European Commission sanctioned the Chinese e-commerce platform with the largest fine imposed so far under the Digital Services Law. Brussels considers that Temu has not been able to detect or stop the sale of dangerous items reaching European consumers, from chargers to baby toys. What exactly happened. Brussels accuses Temu of “not having identified, analyzed or evaluated with due diligence the systemic risks” derived from offering illegal products on its website, ensuring that this practice entails “potential harm” to EU users. This violates the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European regulation that forces large platforms to monitor what circulates through their services. The 200 million exceed the 120 that prevailed over the social network last December, so far the highest penalty under this regulation. No filters. The Commission maintains that this is not a specific case of defective products, but rather a failure in the platform’s own security system. In the words of the Executive“the evidence collected indicates that European consumers are very likely to encounter illegal items in Temu.” The problem, therefore, would not be in a specific seller, but in the company’s inability to filter what it sells. In detail. The research has been supported by several sources. The main one was a “secret shopping” exercise commissioned from an independent contractor, who has carried out laboratory tests on items chosen at random. The results, according to Brusselswere worrying in three categories: Electric chargers: a very high percentage did not pass basic safety tests, with the risk of short circuits and burns. Toys and objects for babies: Many presented medium or high severity hazards, either because they contained chemicals above legal limits or because of the risk of suffocation due to detached parts. Jeweler’s: Irregularities were also detected. According to the statement, these data were compared with customs controls of the Member States and with the European market surveillance database (ICSMS). The three routes, according to the Commission, showed “high or very high” percentages of non-compliant products, although the organization has decided not to publish the exact figures. Product bombing. In addition to the products, Brussels focuses on the technology of the platform. The Commission criticizes that Temu did not evaluate how the design of its own service (recommendation systems and promotional campaigns run by affiliated influencers) could be amplifying the dissemination of these articles. Furthermore, according to the agency, the company based its 2024 risk assessment on generic information from the sector and not on evidence on its own website, ignoring external studies (such as reports from consumer associations in Denmark and Finland) that already warned of the problem. What Brussels says. “Temu’s risk assessment underestimates specific risks, lacks detail, is not based on solid evidence and is not comprehensive,” counted the vice president of the Commission responsible for Technological Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The Finnish commissioner insists that these analyzes “are not mere bureaucratic procedures”, but the backbone of the DSA. How much does the fine weigh? Although the figure is relatively large, represents only 0.38% of Temu’s estimated turnover for 2025 (calculated at around €53 billion), very far from the 6% limit allowed by regulations. The Commission justifies this moderation because the sanction is “proportionate” to other aspects that remain under investigation. The situation has been brewing since 2024based on complaints from the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) and 17 of its national associations. And now what. Temu has three months to pay and until August 28 of this year to submit a “corrective action plan.” That document will then be reviewed by the European Committee for Digital Services, which will have one month to issue a response. After that, the Commission will have another month to set the final decision and on what date the fine will be applied. If the company does not correct course, it is exposed to periodic fines (daily, weekly or monthly) until it complies. The company can appeal to the European courts, but Brussels has already warned that the fine is final and does not intend to lower it even if the company corrects its behavior. Cover image | François Genon and own assembly In Xataka | Europe is already cherishing what was always a dream: the industrial manufacturing of qubits for quantum machines

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.