The Supreme court has updated its approach to timeshare agreements following the amendment introduced by Organic Law 1/2025 of January 2, 2025 on efficiency measures in the public justice system. It now allows such agreements to be for longer than an indefinite-term, or than the statutory 50-year period, when they are linked to preexisting rules. It also accepts agreements in which the subject-matter is defined through a floating system.
On October 30, 2025, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court sitting in plenary session, issued judgments on two cassation appeals in which it modified the view held to date on the duration permitted in timeshare agreements, and also on agreements in which the subject-matter is purportedly undetermined, where those agreements follow a floating system.
The Supreme Court thus accepts the legal amendment included in final provision nineteen of Organic Law 1/2025 of January 2, 2025 on efficiency measures in the public justice system, which we have already discussed in a previous post. It has also updated its approach to the time limit, and the identification of subject-matter of timeshare agreements.
Specifically, it has adopted the following criteria in its decisions:
- It has revised and reinterpreted its previous case law on the transitional provisions of Law 42/1998 of December 15, 1998 on timeshare rights, allowing indefinite terms, and also fixed terms, removing the maximum 50-year statutory period, with respect to rules existing prior to the entry into force of said law
In this regard, the court considered that in connection with preexisting rules, the relevant aspect to consider the 50-year time limit enforceable is not the date of transfer of the right, but rather the method of adaptation of the rules existing prior to Law 42/1998, in accordance with the method chosen by the owners in the deed of adaptation.
- In agreements in which the identification of the subject-matter is established through a floating system, the Supreme Court held that they are not invalid due to failing to identify the subject-matter, provided that it can be identified through a booking process or other criteria envisaged to determine the accommodation or time during which the property in question can be used.
The Chamber has therefore adapted its approach to the amendment introduced recently by Law 1/2025 which extends the determination criteria that help to identify the vested right.
These two judgments modify what had been settled case law in Spain, thereby bringing it into line with the new legislation and, by doing so, finding a solution for the high level of litigation generated by the interpretation previously adopted by the Spanish Supreme Court.
