Tenerife Court Rules Against Mandatory Tourist Rental Extensions

A court in Arona, Tenerife, has ruled that local tourism regulations cannot force apartment owners to extend contracts for renting out their properties to tourists. The court emphasized that owners have the freedom to make their own contract decisions.

This ruling, made by Judge Daniel Pedro Álamo González of the Arona Court of First Instance, highlights the difference between private contract law and public administrative law. The judge rejected a lawsuit from a company that manages tourist properties. The company had wanted a rental agreement to be automatically extended and for a specific apartment to be brought back into its tourist management system. The company argued its case based on Canary Islands tourism laws and the idea of properties being managed together as one tourist business.

The dispute began when two people, who had the right to use an apartment in Adeje, refused to renew their agreement with the tourist management company. The company claimed this refusal went against regional rules, which, in its view, stopped owners from using their property for anything other than tourism. It also asked for a lock blocking access to the apartment to be removed.

Lawyers Nathalie Zanolie and Carlos Zurita represented the four owners involved (the two who had the right to use the apartment, and the two who owned it outright). They argued that there was no legal or contractual reason to force the agreement's extension or to make the owners keep the property in the tourist management system. Their defense focused on the idea of freedom to contract, the difference between public administrative rules and private agreements, and that the outright owners shouldn't be sued in this particular case.

They stated that no law forces parties to stick to a contract once its agreed term is over. Furthermore, the original agreement didn't include any clause for a mandatory extension, so forcing one would be a renewal against civil law principles. The lawyers stressed that while regional tourism laws apply to the operating company from an administrative standpoint, they cannot change a private contract that owners have signed. They also pointed out that the owners' apartment is a separate, registered property within the tourist complex, not part of a larger, indivisible hotel or company structure. Therefore, the individual legal status of each property and the owners' freedom to contract cannot be overridden.

In his decision, the judge clearly separated private contract obligations from any administrative penalties that might arise from not following regional tourism rules. He stressed that these rules cannot change a contract freely agreed upon by the parties. The court's decision confirmed that the contract did not include any clause for a mandatory extension or any term preventing owners from ending the agreement if they wished.

The judge also stated that it's not acceptable to argue that all contracts must follow the same conditions as if they were generally binding. This would go against the unique nature of each agreement and the freedom of each party to contract. He added that because the lawsuit was a private civil matter, it should be judged by private law, not administrative law. No prior administrative issue needed to be resolved for this dispute.

The judge concluded that even though tourism regulations are binding, they cannot be used to cancel the basic terms of a private contract. He distinguished between private contracts and administrative breaches, stating that these must be handled separately without changing the core of a contractual agreement.

Legal sources have confirmed that the company that filed the lawsuit has appealed this court decision.