The Constitutional Court declares that the obligation imposed on large landlords to prove the tenant's vulnerability when filing an eviction procedure is unconstitutional.

Recently, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling dated January 29, 2025, regarding the partial acceptance of the unconstitutionality appeal filed against certain provisions of the Housing Rights Law, which was approved in May 2023.

The ruling partially upholds the appeal, which referred to various sections and provisions of the Housing Rights Law. The Court dismissed the challenges related to jurisdiction, considering that its exercise is legitimate under the Spanish Constitution. It also rejected challenges related to the minimum information that prospective tenants or buyers may require before signing a rental or purchase contract, stating that the provision aims to "ensure transparency in contractual transactions."

Rent caps in high-demand areas remain in place

Furthermore, the Court did not accept the challenge against the regulation of rental prices in high-demand areas, a controversial provision. The Court ruled that there is a “reasonable relationship or fair balance between the means used and the intended objective.” It also stated that while this regulation affects property rights, it does not violate their core essence, as it does not force landlords to rent out their properties but merely sets a maximum price based on an objective and temporary criterion.

As a result, rent price restrictions will continue to apply in areas designated as “high-demand” by the corresponding regional government. Currently, some autonomous communities have not declared such areas, meaning that rent control only applies in regions that have met this requirement, such as Catalonia.

What happens with the obligation to prove tenant vulnerability?

The ruling also reviews amendments to the Civil Procedure Law, which introduced additional requirements for filing eviction lawsuits. In this case, the Court declared unconstitutional the obligation for large landlords to prove whether the tenant in question is in a situation of economic vulnerability, deeming these measures "unreasonable and disproportionate."

The Court justified this decision by stating that this requirement places an “excessive evidentiary burden on the plaintiff,” thereby hindering the landlord’s right to effective judicial protection.

Practical effects

Under the Housing Law, before filing an eviction lawsuit, a large landlord—defined as someone owning more than 10 properties (or 5 in high-demand areas)—had to prove the tenant's economic vulnerability by requesting a report from Social Services. This requirement made eviction lawsuits more difficult to file.

The issue was that obtaining this report required the tenant’s consent. If the tenant did not respond, it delayed the entire process, preventing landlords from meeting this prerequisite. In cases of non-payment, this caused financial harm to landlords by prolonging eviction proceedings. The requirement also applied to illegal squatting cases, making the situation even more problematic.

Pues bien, con la reciente declaración de inconstitucionalidad de esta obligación, podemos avanzar que se agilizarán los procedimientos judiciales de desahucio. El inquilino mantendrá la posibilidad de acreditar encontrarse en una situación de vulnerabilidad, pero tendrá que realizarlo dentro del propio procedimiento, una vez ya admitida la demanda.

Esta sentencia ya ha desplegado sus efectos, por lo que la mencionada obligación ya no es un requisito de admisión a la demanda.