The repeal of the royal decree-law that included the extension of leases has left thousands of contracts in limbo and has opened a phase of great legal uncertainty. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs estimated up to two million contracts potentially meeting the requirements of the regulation, that is, leases expiring before December 2027. And, although there are no official records to specify how many tenants have requested the extension, consulted lawyers and associations estimate that a high percentage have tried to take advantage of the measure.
Read more Yolanda Díaz: “The time tracking will be approved before summer”
The call from the Sumar ministers and tenant unions to send a burofax to request the extension seems to have had an effect. But since this Tuesday, the regulation is no longer in force. What happens from now on? Legal experts maintain that this is an almost unprecedented situation, so they anticipate an increase in litigation around a market already complex in itself like the rental market. It will be the courts that ultimately resolve many of the disagreements between landlords and tenants.
So far, the agreements. Because the experts themselves do not agree on the consequences of the repeal of the regulation.
There does seem to be consensus on the basis: contracts that took advantage of the extension during the month the decree was in force and that ended exactly in that month. Joan Manuel Trayter, professor of Administrative Law and president of the Spanish Association of Urban Law, explains this case: “The royal decree-law, having not been ratified, only produces effects from its publication on March 21, 2026, until April 20 of the same year, since the Constitution states that this type of regulation, which can only be issued by the Government in cases of extraordinary and urgent need, must be ratified within 30 calendar days by the Congress of Deputies from its promulgation.” Therefore, the professor continues, the decree only applies to contracts that took advantage of the extension during those days, “provided that the request complied with the deadlines established in the contract itself.”
If tenants demanded the two-year extension and, moreover, their contract ended between March 21 and April 20, the landlord is obliged to accept it, except if it falls under some of the exceptions included in the decree (need to recover the property for personal use or the signing of a new contract between the parties with different conditions, among others).
The first rulings may take two years or more to arrive, when the extensions have already ended
Trayter laments in this regard that the legal technique used in the decree fosters “legal uncertainty” and “harms all parties involved, particularly tenants.” “It is unacceptable, as has been done, to make a public call to send burofaxes and go to court without explaining the consequences of all this, such as lawyer fees, court costs, possible procedural costs, and all kinds of inconveniences in the contractual relationship,” he highlights.
The real disagreements arise for contracts that expire between the period when the decree lapsed and December 2027.
Read more Flick’s Barça doesn’t know how to draw
Matilde Cuena, professor of Civil Law at the Complutense University of Madrid, is clear: “A decree with a one-month validity that has not been ratified cannot extend its effectiveness for another year and a half.” “The acquired right to the extension does not exist when the contract has not expired within the validity of the decree,” she adds. She gives the example of an inheritance, “like trying to accept or claim an inheritance from a relative before they die, children do not have that right.”
The professor states that, moreover, the use of the royal decree-law complicates everything even more: “What urgent need is there in a contract that ends in a year or more?” she asks. Cuena concludes that if this way of acting is legitimized, “we set the basis for a Government to legislate against the General Courts. And laws cannot be interpreted against the constitutional system.”
On the contrary, from the Sindicat de Llogateres they defend that contracts that end after the repeal of the decree would indeed have the right to the extension as long as the tenant sent a burofax to the landlord. Their spokesperson at the national level, Fernando de los Santos, assures that a decree, during the time it has been in force, “is law and, therefore, valid right.”
The great disagreement: leases that end from the repeal of the royal decree-law onwards
The text literally said that “any contract that ends before December 31, 2027, if the tenant requests that two-year extension, it is granted,” he adds. “The literalness is clear,” he concludes. He sees no room for discussion and defends “not being afraid to exercise our rights.”
In any case, the outcome will ultimately be written by the courts. It will not be quick, legal experts warn. Whatever they decide, the first rulings may arrive after the two years of the disputed extensions.
Read more A pride for Barcelona
