Since February 17, 2023, Catalonia has a new law to solve occupation problems. The regulations authorize the Administration to act against occupations of flats by large owners if they do nothing about it. Leaving small landowners out, the new law focuses on giving municipalities instruments to act against large holders who remain passive in the face of conflictive occupation of their properties.
The new guideline received the yes of 102 deputies belonging to the Junts, ERC, PSC, Ciudadanos and Vox movements. His detractors, on the other hand, predict that the new law will be declared unconstitutional for being an alleged excess of limits. With a prompt publication in the Official Gazette of the Generalitat, the regulations against conflictive squatters have already entered into force. What are your key points?
Illegal occupation is a problem that mainly affects large property holders, such as investment funds. Large holders are natural or legal persons who own more than ten urban properties or properties with an aggregate constructed area of more than 1,500 square meters. Since these buildings tend to remain uninhabited and with little or no surveillance, they are the main target of squatters, especially to turn them into centers of criminal activities.
This occupation tends to worry neighborhood communities and municipalities, which to date could do little or nothing to prevent conflictive squatters from invading the properties. The new Catalan law 1/2023, of February 15, aims to expedite the evictions of these squatters, giving authority to communities and town halls to evict them if the owners of the invaded properties do nothing about it. While parties like Ciudadanos or Vox have applauded her, others wonder if she will end up encountering obstacles on the way to her execution.
In the first place, the new regulation establishes when it will be possible to act against an illegal occupation. The administration may intervene as long as "the property is occupied without an enabling title (such as a lease) and that said situation has generated an alteration of coexistence, public order or endangers the security or integrity of the property." This, after having confirmed that the owners are large holders and that they have not initiated the eviction actions required by the competent administration.
Secondly, the aforementioned law emphasizes that the large holders of squatted properties assume their obligation to act to carry out the eviction. The idea is to put pressure on the owners so that they do not ignore a problem that mainly affects neighboring communities. What happens if the big fork doesn't act? The board of owners where the squatted property is located or its neighbors may request the council to urge the owner to comply with his obligation.
Immediately afterwards, the administration will present a requirement to the squatters so that, within a period of five days, they prove the existence of an enabling occupation title. Likewise, a request will be sent to the owner to prove, within a period of 30 days, documents that prove that he has complied with his obligation to proceed with the eviction action. If the response to both requirements is negative or unsuccessful, the council will be entitled to start the eviction process and achieve the eviction of the occupied property.
Another key point of the new Catalan law against conflictive squatters is what happens with the evicted property. The law contemplates the possibility that the municipalities temporarily acquire the property and use it for public policies of social rent. The maximum term allowed to retain the property under this modality is seven years. In addition, the large holder will have the obligation to cover all administrative and management expenses incurred by the municipality during the eviction process.
The detractors of the new law approved by the Parliament on February 17 ensure that the regulations will be declared unconstitutional after one year. Among many other arguments, they argue that the law is tougher on negligent big holders than on the troublesome squatters themselves. In addition, the sectors that defend the right to housing consider that the norm can harm vulnerable families.
They also question whether the courts can comply with the 30-day period stipulated by law, taking into account how saturated they tend to be. It is also important that the law be more specific in defining what is considered a 'conflicting occupation'. In any case, the regulations are already in place and it only remains to be seen how it is implemented to attack each case of squatting.
