A court has handed down a novel ruling ordering the cessation of a tourist rental activity in residential properties which was found to have breached the right to personal and family privacy of the owners of a home located in the same building. The plaintiffs were also awarded compensation for damages incurred.
On June 19, 2025, Madrid Court of First Instance no. 44 handed down its judgment in a proceeding seeking protection under civil law of the right to personal and family privacy, due to excessive noise and engagement in unlawful activities. It ordered the cessation of the tourist rental activity and awarded the plaintiffs compensation for damages.
The judgment related to a civil case brought by a family with children who claimed – and provided medical reports to this effect – that they were suffering from anxiety disorders, a non-organic sleep-wake disorder and mixed anxiety-depressive reaction, for which they were receiving psychiatric treatment. The medical reports showed that there was a causal link between the symptoms identified and the events that, according to the claim, had been occurring repeatedly in certain residential properties located within the same building which were being rented out as tourist accommodation.
Specifically, the action was brought against the owners of properties located on the floor immediately above the plaintiffs’ property and the floor immediately below, and the properties giving onto the same light well as the plaintiffs’ property. The action was brought against a total of nine properties, although there existed others also being operated as tourist accommodation.
The defendant companies which owned the properties being operated as tourist rentals argued, among other points, that the family had known when they bought their home that the building was being used as tourist accommodation; that there were multiple flats in the building being used for that same purpose; and that tourist rental was not banned under the bylaws of the owners’ association.
For their part, the plaintiffs claimed that the properties in question were being operated as tourist rental properties without the relevant operating license having been obtained, and that there had been administrative rulings calling for the closure and cessation of the activity, and that fines and penalties had been imposed for unlawful engagement in a tourist rental business activity.
The facts on which they based their claim – which the court considered had been adequately proven and had been recurrent – included constant noise, damaging of communal features of the building, the hallway being frequently taken up by suitcases, acts of vandalism, dirt, forms of conduct associated with excessive alcohol consumption, etc. All of this prevented the other residents from getting proper rest and led to disputes which often resulted in the police being called.
The judgment ends by upholding the action seeking cessation of the activity, on the understanding that the exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs to enjoy a normal private and family life in their home was incompatible with the conditions in which the properties were being utilized by the defendants as tourist rentals. It concluded that the events in question were sufficiently serious and persistent in nature, and that the attitude of the co-defendants had been one of indifference, such indifference being considered an essential factor when weighing up the proportionality of the measure imposed.
The court, in parallel, awarded compensation to the plaintiffs for nonpecuniary damages suffered, based on the expert psychiatric report they had provided, which was not disputed by the defendants.
