property

the Horizontal Property Law

by

Unknowns may loom on Spain’s horizon, but one thing is certain: the country is aging. Yeah the latest projections of the INE are spot on. By mid-century, almost a third of the population (30.5%) will have blown out all 65 candles. The problem is that many of our buildings are not prepared to accommodate older people due to their architectural barriers or accessibility deficiencies. Thus, an interesting question remains: What happens if at a given moment a neighbor in a block demands a ramp or an elevator to get to their home? The Horizontal Property Law is clear about it. What has happened? That on Spain’s horizon there is a ticking time bomb that will affect thousands of buildings in the country. The reason: although Spanish society it’s getting older (something that happens in many other nations, inside and outside Europe) a good part of its residential park is not prepared to accommodate people with mobility problems. The challenge is best understood when reviewing two recent studies: the demographic forecasts of the INE and the report on “accessible mobility” launched in 2024 by Ilunion and Otis. And what do they say? The first (INE) reveals that in a matter of a few decades the percentage of septuagenarians, octogenarians and nonagenarians will grow considerably. Yes right now 20.4% of Spaniards are 65 or older, in 2055 that footprint will have expanded to around 30.5%. The second (the report of Ilunion) warns that 34.3% of the main homes (6.45 million) are located in buildings without easy access, in the opinion of their residents. In fact, only 20.8% are prepared for the aging of their tenants. It is not surprising if we take into account that in our country there are five million people who live in buildings of three or more heights that lack an elevator, so they have no choice but to go up and down stairs every time they want to go outside. That’s what I suggested at least. an analysis published two years ago by elDiario.es and which is based on microdata from the Survey of Essential Population and Housing Characteristics, a poll of the INE. What if someone asks for an elevator? That is the question that hovers over many communities of neighbors in Spain and They responded recently our colleagues from Decoesfera. What happens if suddenly an owner proposes installing a ramp or an elevator in the building, a structure that guarantees accessibility to all homes? Do you need board approval? And if the work is carried out, are all residents obliged to bear its cost, including those who live on the ground floor and will not use the elevator? Are there any circumstances in which an owner can require infrastructure that guarantees accessibility? As is usual in building issues, the answer is in the legal “bible” of neighborhood coexistence: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). More specifically in article 10. What does the law say? That if the request comes from owners with reduced mobility or of advanced age (those who a priori have more difficulties getting around) the works must be carried out no matter what. Without the need for prior agreement from the Board of Owners, although there is advice that advise that the issue be addressed in meetings to seek agreements. Especially due to the cost that usually involves installing ramps, elevators or stair lifts. In your article 10.1 The LPH clarifies that “the “works necessary to guarantee reasonable adjustments in terms of universal accessibility and, in any case, those required at the request of the owners in whose home or premises in whose home or premises people with disabilities or people over 70 live, work or provide voluntary services” will be mandatory and will not require prior agreement from the board. And in case there are any doubts, the law emphasizes that the objective is to ensure their mobility, which may involve the installation of ramps or elevators. Does it say anything about costs? Yes. Although the LPH makes it clear The right of elderly and disabled owners to demand ramps and elevators also establishes certain limits as far as costs are concerned: neighbors must contribute “provided that the amount passed on annually from them, once subsidies or public aid has been deducted, does not exceed 12 ordinary monthly payments of common expenses.” From Alapont clarify that the rule refers to the fixed contributions that each neighbor contributes to help with ordinary expenses. What if there are subsidies? If the cost of the work exceeds these 12 ordinary monthly payments, the difference must be paid by the owners interested in having the elevator or ramp installed. The LPH adds that in any case the rest of the neighbors will have to assume their part of the spill. “It will also be mandatory to carry out these works when the public aid to which the community can have access reaches 75% of the amount thereof,” precise. The key is that the law does not talk about works related to the aesthetics of the property, but about something much more basic: universal accessibility, that all its residents can enter and exit, free of barriers. When the elevator is claimed by a neighbor who does not meet the requirements set out in the LPH (under 70 years of age and without functional diversity), the proposal must receive the endorsement of a simple majority in the board. If the measure goes ahead and receives the green light, all neighbors must participate, Alapont clarifiesincluding those who reside on the ground floor. Images | Diego Marín (Unsplash) and Elio E. López Vega (Unsplash) Via | Decosphere In Xataka | Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

by

It comes with going outside to check it out. Spain is increasingly a country of dogs and cats than of babies. Literally. about a year ago The World did the math and it turned out that there are 1.8 million children under four years old for 10.5 million pets, which leaves a ratio of almost six animals per infant. This is perceived in the economy, society, cities… and of course the neighborhood communities, where it is not strange that a question arises: ¿What the law says about pets living in apartment blocks? In case of discomfort, noise, dirt… What does the regulations provide? Are there so many pets? Yes. Although it is not easy to compile accurate statistics on pets, there are two sources that help us get a precise idea of ​​the extent to which we have opened our homes to dogs, cats, reptiles, rodents, fish, birds and other fauna. The first is the REIACwhose census is based on microchipped pets. At least in 2023 it added 9.2 million dogs and 1.2 million cats. If we base ourselves on Anfaac, the association of feed manufacturers, your latest data They speak of 6.9 million dogs, 4.9 million cats, five million fish, 3.2 birds, 740,000 reptiles and 548,000 small mammals, which raises the general count of pets above the 20 million of animals. The big question, especially when we talk about pets of a certain size, that run around and must go outside several times a day, as is the case with dogs, is… What happens when they cause disturbances inside a building? When it comes to communities of owners, the reference standard is the Horizontal Property Law (LPH), a law that does not address the issue directly, but does establish a valuable framework, especially in its articles 7.2 and 9.1, which recall the coexistence guidelines that neighbors must respect. Article 7.2 of the LPH: “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 statuses, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities”. Article 9 of the LPH: “The obligations of each owner are: to respect the general facilities of the community and other common elements, whether they are for general or private use of any of the owners, whether or not they are included in their apartment or premises, making appropriate use of them and preventing damage or damage from being caused”. The regulations themselves also remind us that, in the event that a neighbor is carrying out annoying activities (which in this case can be transferred to your pet), the community president should ask you to correct them. If that does not happen and the problem persists, the case may end up being taken to court. Although the LPH is a key tool, other standards come into play in this case. The reason is simple. When we talk about pets and neighborhood communities, two different planes overlap. On the one hand, there is the right that everyone has to enjoy their home freely. On the other hand, there is the necessary coexistence between apartments and the shared enjoyment of community areas. The first thing, the enjoyment of the home, is regulated the Constitutionwhich among other issues protects its “inviolability” and private property. Regarding the second, coexistence within the building, it is normal that it is regulated by the statuses of the community. And although this document cannot prohibit owners to have pets at home (a different thing is the tenants and what appears in their rental contracts), the internal rules of a block can establish certain limits when using collective spaces, such as elevators, gardens or swimming pools. Therefore, it is advisable to consult what the statutes say about pets. For example, they may prohibit dogs from being walked off-leash in the building. What there is no doubt about is that if the animal causes any damage, the owner is responsible. It is clearly established by the Civil Code in his article 1905in which he remembers who should assume the responsibility (and costs) if a dog, cat or other animal causes damage outside your home. Article 1905 of the Civil Code: “The owner of an animal, or the one who uses it, is responsible for the damage it causes, even if it escapes or is lost. This responsibility will only cease in the event that the damage came from force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered it.”. The Animal Welfare Law also sets guidelines related to the care of pets at home, which in turn influences the conditions in which they must live, both in houses and in apartments within buildings. For a start (article 27.i) No pet can be left unsupervised for more than three days in a row, a period that is reduced to 24 consecutive hours if we are talking about dogs. The rule also prohibits dogs and cats from living permanently on terraces or balconies, which is considered a “serious infringement”. Image | Eri Gonzales (Unsplash) In Xataka | The Horizontal Property Law is quite clear about one of the most conflictive phenomena of winter: Christmas

Every Christmas there are people who fill their balconies with lights and decorations. The Horizontal Property Law has something to say

by

It happens December after December. As the holidays approach, there are balconies, windows and facades that are invaded by a mixture of led lights, garlands, papanoels Various Christmas-themed pendants and ornaments. Where before there was a simple and nondescript terrace, suddenly there is a confusing mass of colors, lights and shapes that leaves bouncing a tricky question: Do apartment owners have the right to turn their balconies into small theme parks? To answer it you have to go to the LPH. Lights, give me (many) lights. The one from Vigo may be the best known casebut there are many cities in Spain that in recent years have begun to fill their streets with thousands (or even millions) of Christmas lights, far surpassing the decorations that could be seen a decade ago. In the Galician city they boast this year of having nearly 12 million of LEDs spread across 460 neighborhoods, in Madrid they talk about 13 millionin Alcalá de almost fivein the busiest areas of Malaga they will shine 2.7 million…And so on a long list of cities that every Christmas put on a peculiar suit of lights. And what happens in the buildings? The City Councils are not the only ones that get carried away by this lighting fury. Every year there are people who transfer this display of lights and decorations to their own homes, both inside their homes, with Christmas trees, nativity scenes or garlands, and to balconies and facades. It comes with taking a walk through most cities to see people who, when December arrives, fill their terraces with colored LEDs or even decorations that stick out from the balcony. The catalog is extensive: papanoels pendants, decorations of wise men climbing stairs or garlands that fall from the façade. Can they do it? A quick Google search shows that that question reborn each Decembercoinciding with the dates on which people decorate their homes. Can the rest of the neighbors forbid me from giving free rein to my passion for Christmas decorations? Are there limits when we talk about decorating balconies? If I want to decorate a common area of ​​the building, do I need permission from my neighbors? These are questions frequently enough that platforms specialized in both law and the real estate market have devoted attention to them over the last few years. Two clear cases are Legalites and Photohouse. The best: communication. These may seem like far-fetched questions, but we must take into account a fundamental fact: the balconies, facades and roofs of a building do not have the same condition as the living room or kitchen of a home. Terraces, for example, are usually spaces for private use: they are enjoyed exclusively by the owner of the apartment, but in reality they are common elements, so the owner cannot do whatever he wants with them. Without going any further, before carrying out a work, what recommend agencies like Reale is to consult with the board. The same logic can be transferred to Christmas decorations if what we have in mind is to make a huge display of lights or decorate the facade. The first thing is to confirm if the community statutes regulate the exterior aesthetics of the building. As they remember in LegálitasIf we want to install decoration that invades the sidewalk, public spaces or street furniture, it is also advisable to consult the City Council first. After all, the private use of these spaces may require a permit or even entail the payment of a fee. LPH Word. When we talk about communities and coexistence, there is a reference standard that is always good to keep in mind: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). The text does not specifically talk about LED lights, Christmas trees or papanoels pendants, but gives some guidelines that are applicable in these cases. One of its clearest articles on the matter is the seventh, which clarifies what exactly the owner of an apartment or premises can and (cannot) do: “You may modify the architectural elements, facilities or services of the building when it does not undermine or alter the safety of the building, its general structure, the external configuration or state, or harm the rights of other owners, and must report such works to whoever represents the community.” “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,” adds the LPH in the same article. In case there were any doubts, the norm (citing in turn the Civil code) remember that there are elements subject to a “co-ownership” regime. Why is it important? Because although the wording of the LPH may be generic and does not explicitly talk about Christmas decorations, it touches on the key points that can generate conflict between the different neighbors of a block. To be more precise, it emphasizes that no owner can “undermine” the “external configuration and state” of the property or “harm” the rest of the tenants. So, if we decide to turn our balconies into small tributes to Christmas, we will have to ask ourselves a series of questions first: Do the decorations hang or stick out enough to affect the “exterior configuration” of the property? Is the installation of outlets, wiring and lights safe? If they are very close to another neighbor’s window, can we cause inconvenience? “Out of prudence”. The most advisable thing is therefore to keep all these issues in mind and above all to be aware of the internal rules of each community. Also communicate with those responsible. So advises it in elDiario.es Patricia Briones, from the College of Property Administrators of Madrid (CAFMadrid). “Any neighbor who wishes to install decorative elements in a common space on a private basis must, out of prudence and to avoid conflicts, request authorization from the board,” … Read more

We Spaniards have been calling all donuts with holes “donut” all our lives. Now it is private property of Bimbo

by

Cases of all types and types pass through the Supreme Court table. That’s nothing new. What is curious is that its magistrates rule on a lawsuit in which pastries, linguistics and brands are combined, all well mixed in a legal dispute so full of chiaroscuro that justice has taken a while almost a decade in reaching a conclusion. As if that were not striking in itself, at the center of the dispute was one of the most famous sweets in the country: Donut. We explain ourselves. Word of the RAE. If you open the RAE online dictionary and type “donut” you will see that the meaning From the word is clear, at least to academics: a donut is basically a “spongy, donut-shaped piece of pastry, fried and usually glazed or covered in chocolate.” A type of donut. The RAE also clarifies that the term comes from the registered trademark Donut. The million dollar question is… Is donut (like that, in lower case and with an accent) the same as Donut? Does the fact that the first word has been in the Royal Academy’s dictionary for years allow any Spanish company to use it freely or is it the exclusive property of the company that popularized it, Bakery Donuts (Bimbo), owner for decades of the DONUT brand and others that have included the term? Almost a decade of lawsuits. The above questions are more than just questions thrown into the air or theoretical reflections. They are at the bottom of a dispute that may date back to beginning of 2017when a long legal tug-of-war began centered on the word “doughnut.” Around that time, Bimbo Donuts Iberia filed a lawsuit before the Commercial Court No. 9 of Madrid when it detected that another third-party company (Atlanta Restauración Tematica) was offering donuts on its website that, although they were called Redondoughts, were described as “doughnuts.” For Bimbo, this represented a violation of its trademark and it decided to sue. Why’s that? The Confidential has had access to the last ruling in the case, which allows us to understand the arguments put forward by both parties. For Bimbo, the fact that another company used the term represented two things: first, a use of its brand, which has been cared for for decades; second, an example of unfair competition that affects their interests in the candy market. For Atlanta things are different. In your opinion“donut” is nothing more than a word in common use, a word recognized by the Royal Academy. As if that were not enough, he claims that he has not even used it “as a trademark”, but rather on his website, where at the time it had an “insignificant” reach. In fact, the company is dedicated to selling to professionals in what is known as ‘Horeca’ channela label that basically refers to establishments such as hotels, restaurants and cafes. To the Supreme. Bimbo’s claims were unsuccessful in the first instance. Not in second either. As remember Five Days, This last court even recognized that the word donut is descriptive, in common use and appears in the RAE dictionary. The multinational did not give up and the issue ended up in the Supreme Court, which is the one that has had the last word. The most curious thing is that for its magistrates the reality is somewhat different than for previous judges. “It cannot be ignored that the use of the same word by Atlanta may imply per se an improper use of the reputation or notoriety of the Donut brands, with the consequent impairment of their distinctive character and reputation,” reasons the ruling of the Supreme Court, which even speaks of the risk of “loss of prestige.” “The third party unfairly benefits from the attractive power of the brand.” In case there were any doubts, the ruling recalls that Atlanta did not exactly use the term RAE (with a lowercase letter and an accent), which leads the court to point out that the company did not act in a “loyal” manner towards the “legitimate interests” of Bakery. “It affected its renown, distinctive character and exclusivity,” he remarks. An armored brand. The conclusion? Whatever the RAE says, the unauthorized use of the word ‘Donut’ for commercial purposes (at least in Spain) violates the rights brand of Grupo Bimbo. Hence the multinational spoke of a “historic legal victory.” In his opinion, the ruling recognizes “the renown” of his brand and grants it “maximum protection.” In reality, since Atlanta has already removed the word from its website and its use was “limited,” it does not impose compensation or a fine. Images | Donuts In Xataka | There are people counterfeiting Rioja bottles and selling them in Vietnam: a growing problem for the wine industry

more than 2,000 euros for each console generation and with nothing in property

by

Game Pass The price of your Tier More expensiveand not a pinch: an entire 50% that will apply to the Ultimate rate, a spectacular rise from 17.99 to 26.99 that is added to the one we already lived in July 2024, where 14.9 went to a still discreet 17.99 euros per month. A decision that puts on the table Not just an economic issuebut it forces the player to reflect on the nature of the service and what he obtains in exchange for the rate. Everything, nothing. It is an access system to games that We have completely naturalized to the point of turning it into a fee that governs the rest (PlayStation Plusfor example, it is “Sony’s game passs”). But it is amazing how we have become accustomed, over time, to His indisputable sticksvery visible, go unnoticed. That could change with this notorious price increase. The first thing is first. In spring this year It was already very clear that Microsoft’s main business was to make games to get in Game Pass. For a couple of seasons the company was already completely open to the idea that Xbox consoles are not necessary, but that it can be played with the platform titles on any screen with screen, thanks to the cloud. It was at that time where, in addition, we saw something unusual: Microsoft had become the main PlayStation editor, thanks to the success of games such as ‘Call of Duty: Black Ops 6’, ‘Minecraft’ E ‘Indiana Jones and the big circle’. There is no doubt: the least in Microsoft is their own consoles. We can play when, where and as we want. It is an idea that has a clear dark reverse: we have nothing in property, we are only renting a service. And the accounts are increasingly uphill: if each console generation lasts seven years, and we opt for the ultimate option of the service, we will have spent more than 2,200 euros to play. Strictly in playing, but not in a console and games that we can, for example, resell to cover future expenses. We are paying a money for nothing tangible in return, a drama that we already know well about the streamingbut somehow, he felt different when we had a very visible console next to the TV. Too cheap to be true. The funny thing is that the general sensation, As my partner Álex Alcolea saysis that Game Pass was “too cheap”: offer front -row games like ‘Silksong‘ either ‘Clair Oscur: Expedition 33‘(more everything that Microsoft studies develop) from day one was a bet that sounded very well for the player, but than made more than one analyst scratch the head: Was it economically sustainable in time? The purchase of activation by 68.7 billion dollars He only adds doubts to the subject: Game Pass smelled too much of a bargain. Taking ball. Microsoft has been trying to overcome its competitors for a while with an economic muscle’s blow: the purchase of Bethesda and Activision, the very affordable prices of Game Pass -rebosante for years of an indisputable attraction, between set in streaming and important releases on a day one- and survival without apparent problems to the Sales fall of Xbox Series. But all that seems to begin to change, and the price increase of Game Pass seems to sound at the beginning of the change: will we see up in the other rates? Will Microsoft definitely claudicate to have exclusive one in your service? Will there be more Xbox consoles? At the moment, we all have to undertake a considerable reflection on how much and why we are willing to spend. Header | Microsoft In Xataka | The portable Xbox is finally a reality. The only unimportant detail is that it is not exactly an xbox

Spacex has asked Mexico to stop invading its property and returns the starship pieces that fell into the country

by

The tension between Spacex and the Government of Mexico has climbed this week after explosion of a starship prototype of June 18. While the Mexican government investigates the remains that crossed the border as illegal pollution and studies possible demands, Elon Musk’s company says they are of its property and asks to stop hindering its recovery. Context. On the night of June 18, a stage of the Starship rocket suddenly exploded during a fuel load for a motor ignition test. The explosion destroyed the ship and spread fragments around Starbase. A few days later, the local media of Tamaulipas reported that part of the remains They had reached the beaches of La Burrita in Matamoroson the Mexican side of the border. There were gas tanks, steel sheets and aluminum parts. Civil Protection, the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Environment of Mexico went to the place to remove the remains and take water, sand and vegetation samples for analysis. Mexican anger. The situation has ended up climbing this week until the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, who described the remains of “pollution” and a possible violation of sovereignty and Mexican environmental legislation. According to Sheinbaum, his government will make “the necessary demands that have to be done” according to international laws. Spacex’s response. In one publication of xElon Musk’s company formally requested the Mexican government to return the remains of the rocket, arguing that they are of their property and that their attempts have been hindered. “Despite Spacex’s attempts to recover related remains (with the explosion), which are and remains tangible property of Spacex, these attempts have been hindered by unauthorized parts that invade (our) private property.” “They are not pollutants.” Spacex states that Starship materials do not represent “chemical, biological or toxicological risk.” And offers resources for cleaning. The company claims to be entitled to recover its property and asks Mexican authorities “local and federal assistance.” It is a shock of narratives. Mexico qualifies the incident as an environmental and security impact against Mexicans. Spacex frames it as a non -polluting private property recovery. Spacex embarked the ball into the neighbor’s house. The neighbor is angry and wants to sue. Image | D Wise, NSF

Starbase residents voted to be the city of Spacex. Now a letter has reached the right to their property

by

In May, the residents of the small community that surrounded the SpaceX headquarters in Boca Chica, southeast of Texas, carried out A historical vote. An overwhelming mass was done in favor of constituting the city of Starbase, which most or less became that Elon Musk’s company became “almost” owner of the enclave, with levels of autonomy Never seen until now. That’s why, The letter That has just arrived at residents has been a surprise. Urban experiment. The transformation of the former Texano of Boca Chica village in the corporate city of Starbase represents much more than a simple name change. Conceived as the epicenter of Spacex’s space operations and, as we said, vmostly For a large -compound population for company employees, Starbase has now moved to a new phase of territorial reorganization. The problem. Than a disseminated memorandum by him city ​​administratorKent Myers, warns many residents who could “lose the right to continue using their property for current use” due to a rezoning proposal that will be debated on June 23. He Document is explicit: Those who have land in the affected area could be forced to modify or abandon them if they do not conform to the new urban plan. The city plans to become a mixed area of ​​residences, offices and services, although in practice the development model is almost exclusively oriented to support the Spacex expansion and its launch facilities. City-business. They counted in Fortune That the Starbase Urban Project recovers, with technologically sophisticated, but politically disturbing features, the model of the old ones “Company Towns“North American: cities where the owner company was also the employer, regulator and in many sovereign spaces of space. In fact, the current mayor, Robert Peden12 -year -old veteran in Spacex, and the majority of the electorate It is composed of company workers. This structure creates a fusion between civil governance and corporate objectives, where the public interest is subordinated to the industrial plan of a single entity. In this context, key decisions such as rezoning, mobility restrictions or access to common goods such as beaches are no longer settled in a Public Square open, but within the perimeter of a private logic protected by local legal structures. Public space restriction. One of the most visible consequences of Spacex’s advance in Starbase has been the progressive Restriction of access to Boca Chica Beacha coastal strip of great environmental and spiritual value, especially for the Carrizo/Comecrudo tribe. With the argument of guaranteeing security during the releases, the restrictions have been multiplied, and recently the Texas Senate approved legislation which allows local authorities to close the beach during the week and limit their use during weekends. Ecological organizations They have denounced That, under the security pretext, a “system designed to give them a de facto private beach is consolidating.” The appropriation of a public good for corporate purposes awakens criticism and calls into question the compatibility between economic investment promises and collective rights. Global implications. It is the last of the legs that appears with the drift that is taking the case of Starbase. Its consolidation not only constitutes a local experiment, but also A possible model For future business colonies with functional sovereignty aspirations. Fortune explained that if a coastal settlement can be transformed into A corporate municipality With the right to issue land use, condition the permanence of non -affiliated residents and manage public infrastructure Like a beachdoors are also opened to an advanced form of territorial privatization. In a world where megacorporations such as Spacex, Tesla or X (yes, all of Musk) concentrate each time More economic power And symbolic, Starbase could serve General trial For similar projects in other regions with lax regulations. If you want also and put to think about Musk keyif the promise is that these cities are platforms for interplanetary expansion, the Texan experience suggests that, before conquering Mars, the conquest can begin with the political geography of the Earth. Image | Alexander Hatley In Xataka | Texas has a new city. Until a few days ago, it was only Spacex’s base in Boca Chica In Xataka | Leaving California is just the first step: Spacex has started the procedures to create an independent city in Texas

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.