The Fourth Section of the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, in Order no. 206/2025 of 6 October, has set out an important interpretative criterion regarding the requirement to use Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR) in matters governed by Spanish horizontal property law.
The decision, issued in appeal proceedings no. 991/2025 and authored by Justice Antonio Angos Ullate, addresses a highly topical issue following the entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025.
The dispute arose from ordinary proceedings brought by a property owner against her homeowners’ association, seeking to challenge a resolution adopted at an ordinary general meeting concerning the determination of certain outstanding debts. The court of first instance refused to admit the claim on two cumulative grounds: failure to prove prior recourse to an ADR mechanism and failure to demonstrate that the claimant was up to date with community fees, a requirement laid down in Article 18.2 of the Horizontal Property Act.
The appeal focused exclusively on the first of these grounds. The Provincial Court partially upheld the appeal and held that prior recourse to ADR is not required in actions seeking to challenge resolutions of homeowners’ associations. Although such actions are not expressly excluded under Article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025, the court emphasised that they concern matters which are not freely disposable by the parties, as they are governed by mandatory legal rules.
The order explains that community resolutions fall within the exclusive competence of the general meeting of owners and must be adopted in accordance with the legally prescribed majorities and procedures. Consequently, neither the president of the association nor any other representative has authority to settle or compromise on the validity or nullity of such resolutions. Any attempt at extrajudicial negotiation would therefore lack real legal effectiveness and cannot be imposed as a procedural prerequisite. Moreover, the court considers that the deliberation taking place within the general meeting itself already amounts to a form of negotiation.
However, the Provincial Court upheld the refusal to admit the claim on the second ground, as the appellant did not challenge on appeal the finding that she had failed to prove she was up to date with the payment of community fees. As a result, the appeal was only partially successful and no order for costs was made at second instance.
This decision provides valuable clarification within the new procedural framework and enhances legal certainty for homeowners’ associations and individual owners alike, clearly delineating when ADR mechanisms are required and when they are incompatible with the mandatory nature of horizontal property law.
We’ll see if the rest of Provincial Courts will follow this approach.
