In Spain, the Audiencia Provincial de Badajoz rejected the appeal of a community of owners against the owner of a commercial establishment who carried out works in an interior courtyard without authorization. The ruling of September 3, 2025, confirmed the first instance decision and allowed the contested interventions to remain, which included alterations to a chimney, raising the height of a wall, replacing a shed, installing a door near the lobby, and widening an opening between the establishment and the courtyard. The court analyzed each intervention separately and concluded that no damage to the other owners, safety risks, or relevant alterations to the building's structure were demonstrated.
The condominium wanted all alterations removed because they affected common elements. However, the court considered that the chimney already existed and the owner only connected it to the establishment and increased its height to comply with technical requirements. Regarding the wall, the technical reports indicated that the intervention did not affect the structure and improved safety conditions. The opening to the courtyard resulted from widening a pre-existing access that was already included in a technical project from 2014, and the court understood that there was no appropriation of the space by the owner.
In the case of the shed, it was demonstrated that it had existed for several years and that the contested configuration predated 2016. Given the absence of proven harm and the time elapsed, the court considered the condominium's claim to force the owner to remove that intervention to be abusive. The decision does not, however, establish that all works without authorization are valid, depending on the specific characteristics of each case.
The article also refers to the applicable Portuguese regime, mentioning that articles 1420 to 1425 of the Civil Code regulate the distinction between ownership and use of common parts, works that require authorization from the condominium assembly, and the requirements for altering the constitutive title. A ruling by the Guimarães Court of Appeal of June 11, 2025, also applied the doctrine of abuse of rights, considering that the absence of damage does not dispense with a legally required authorization.
