Mandatory social rent in Catalonia after SSTC 120/2024 and 25/2025 and STS 1086/2025

The Catalan mandatory social rent regime has undergone a far-reaching transformation following judgments 120/2024 and 25/2025 of the “Tribunal Constitucional”, Spain's Constitutional Court, and judgment 1086/2025 of the “Tribunal Supremo”, Spain's Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court has annulled various elements of the Catalan reforms that turned the offer of social rent into a procedural precondition, on the ground that they encroached on the State's competences over procedural matters and civil legislation, while the Supreme Court has held that art. 5.2 of Catalan Law 24/2015 refers to mortgage enforcement and to possession claims for non-payment, but not to possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term. The result is a model in which the administrative obligation to offer social rent survives in certain situations of vulnerability, but its configuration as a procedural requirement fades away and the need to distinguish between the administrative obligation, the penalty regime and the effects on possession proceedings is reinforced.

08/01/2026

Litigation Landlord and tenant

1.The origin and design of mandatory social rent in Law 24/2015

Catalan Law 24/2015, on urgent measures to address the emergency in the field of housing and energy poverty, introduced mandatory social rent as an instrument for preventing the loss of the principal residence of persons in a situation of vulnerability. Art. 5 of the Law provided that, before filing a claim for mortgage enforcement or a possession claim for non-payment of rent or of the price, “grandes tenedores” of housing, large-scale landlords, had to make an offer of social rent to occupants who met certain requirements of economic and social vulnerability. The offer had to consist of a tenancy of a minimum duration and at a reduced rent, adjusted to the household's financial means, and was configured as a precondition for filing the claim, so that the absence of an offer could lead to the claim not being admitted or to the proceedings being stayed.

This design placed mandatory social rent at the intersection of administrative law, civil law and procedural law. On the one hand, it was an obligation imposed on certain persons, large-scale landlords, within the framework of the social function of property and of housing policy. On the other, it bore directly on the bringing of civil claims and on the conduct of mortgage enforcement and possession proceedings, making the admission and the continuation of claims conditional. Law 24/2015 also provided for a penalty regime for failure to comply with the obligation to offer social rent, with fines and measures to restore lawfulness.

2.Constitutional delimitation: SSTC 120/2024 and 25/2025

In judgments 120/2024 and 25/2025, the Constitutional Court has reviewed this model in the light of the division of competences between the State and the “comunidades autónomas”, Spain's autonomous regions. Its analysis focuses on the nature of the obligation to offer social rent and on its connection with the civil proceedings. The Court recognises the competence of the Generalitat, Catalonia's regional government, to regulate the social function of property and to impose duties as to the use and the offer of housing within the framework of housing policy and of the protection of vulnerable persons, consistently with art. 47 CE and with the competences over housing conferred by the Statute of Autonomy. It considers, however, that configuring the offer of social rent as a procedural requirement for the admission or the continuation of mortgage enforcement and possession claims encroaches on the State's exclusive competence over procedural legislation and over the basic rules of contractual obligations.

The judgments declare unconstitutional and void the provisions of Law 24/2015 and of its subsequent amendments which made the admission of the claim or the continuation of the proceedings conditional on proof of the offer of social rent, as well as the provisions conferring on the courts the power to stay the proceedings until the offer was made. The Court takes the view that the regulation of the requirements for admitting claims, of the grounds for staying proceedings and of the procedural consequences of a failure to comply with prior obligations falls to the State legislature, and that an autonomous region may not introduce specific procedural preconditions linked to housing policy.

At the same time, the Court upholds the validity of the administrative obligation to offer social rent in certain cases, provided that it operates on the administrative plane, with a penalty regime of its own, and does not bear directly on the civil proceedings. The Generalitat may require large-scale landlords to make offers of social rent to vulnerable persons before initiating certain steps to recover possession, and may impose penalties for non-compliance, but it may not prevent the courts from admitting or hearing claims on the ground that no offer was made.

3.The Supreme Court's clarification: STS 1086/2025 and the scope of art. 5.2 of Law 24/2015

Judgment 1086/2025 of the Supreme Court, handed down in July 2025, adds an important piece to the interpretative puzzle. The Supreme Court rules on the scope of art. 5.2 of Law 24/2015, which concerns the obligation to offer social rent in cases of mortgage enforcement and of possession claims for non-payment. The Court makes clear that the provision does not extend to possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term, that is, to cases in which the landlord brings a possession claim on the ending of the tenancy when the agreed term expires, without any non-payment of rent.

This clarification has significant practical consequences. In possession claims for non-payment of rent, the administrative obligation to offer social rent survives, even though it can no longer be configured as a procedural requirement, and non-compliance may give rise to administrative penalties. In mortgage enforcement proceedings the obligation also survives, in so far as Law 24/2015 maintains it as a duty of large-scale landlords towards vulnerable occupants. In possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term, by contrast, the landlord is not required by Law 24/2015 to offer social rent, and the possession proceedings are governed by the “Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos” —the LAU, Spain's urban tenancies act— and by State procedural legislation, without specific preconditions derived from Catalan housing legislation.

The Supreme Court thus reinforces the distinction between the grounds for a possession claim and between the fields of application of the social rent obligation. The enhanced protection of vulnerable persons through the offer of social rent is confined to cases of loss of the home through non-payment or through mortgage enforcement, where the housing emergency is most acute, but it does not extend to the expiry of the contractual term, where the loss of the home follows from the ending of an agreed contractual relationship.

4.What remains of Catalan mandatory social rent: administrative obligation, civil proceedings and penalties

After SSTC 120/2024 and 25/2025 and STS 1086/2025, Catalan mandatory social rent is reconfigured on three distinct planes. First, it survives as an administrative obligation imposed on certain persons, principally large-scale landlords, in cases of mortgage enforcement and of possession claims for non-payment against persons in a situation of vulnerability. The Generalitat may require that, before initiating certain steps to recover possession, an offer of social rent adjusted to the household's financial means be made, and it may monitor and penalise compliance with that obligation through administrative procedures, inspections and penalties.

Secondly, its configuration as a procedural requirement for the admission or the staying of mortgage enforcement and possession claims disappears. The courts may not refuse to admit a claim or stay proceedings because no offer of social rent has been made, unless State procedural legislation so provides. The protection of vulnerable persons in the civil proceedings operates through the mechanisms laid down in State legislation, such as the suspension of evictions in certain cases, the involvement of the social services and the application of the rules on unfair terms, but not through procedural preconditions imposed by an autonomous region.

Thirdly, the possibility of imposing administrative penalties for failure to comply with the obligation to offer social rent is maintained, within the framework of the penalty regime of Law 18/2007 on the right to housing and of Law 24/2015 itself. The Generalitat may impose fines and order measures to restore lawfulness, such as the belated making of the offer or the adoption of alternative solutions, but these penalties do not directly affect the course of the civil proceedings; they operate instead on the administrative plane.

This threefold distinction is essential for litigation practice. A lawyer acting in possession proceedings for non-payment or in mortgage enforcement must be aware of the existence of the administrative obligation to offer social rent and of its possible penalty consequences, but cannot raise the absence of an offer as a ground for refusing to admit the claim or for staying the proceedings, save in the specific cases provided for by State legislation. In possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term, the social rent obligation does not apply, and procedural strategy will focus on the interpretation of the LAU and of the contract.

5.Effects on possession claims and coordination with housing policy

The new framework has significant effects on possession claims in Catalonia. In proceedings for non-payment of rent, the administrative obligation to offer social rent may influence the conduct of large-scale landlords, who may choose to make offers of social rent in order to avoid penalties and to manage the occupants' situation of vulnerability in a more orderly way. The civil proceedings will nevertheless take their course in accordance with State legislation, and any offer of social rent will operate on the plane of out-of-court negotiation or of the enforcement of administrative measures, not as a procedural requirement.

In mortgage enforcement proceedings, the social rent obligation may interact with the State mechanisms for the protection of vulnerable mortgage debtors, such as eviction moratoriums and banking codes of good practice. Coordination between Catalan housing policy and State measures will be key if overlaps are to be avoided and effective protection of those affected is to be ensured.

In possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term, the absence of a social rent obligation strengthens landlords' legal certainty and the predictability of the duration of contracts, but it also highlights the need for housing policies that address the position of those who lose their home on the ending of temporary contracts, particularly in the context of a stressed market. Catalan housing policy may act in such cases through incentive measures, rent subsidies and the expansion of the public housing stock, but not by imposing mandatory social rent tied to the civil proceedings.

6.Conclusions

Catalan mandatory social rent has been delimited in constitutional terms and reinterpreted by the case law of the State courts. SSTC 120/2024 and 25/2025 have annulled the configuration of the offer of social rent as a procedural requirement, reaffirming the State's exclusive competence over procedural matters and over the basic rules of contractual obligations, but they have upheld the validity of the administrative obligation to offer social rent in certain situations of vulnerability. STS 1086/2025 has held that art. 5.2 of Law 24/2015 refers to mortgage enforcement and to possession claims for non-payment, but not to possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term, reinforcing the distinction between the grounds for a possession claim and the fields of application of the obligation.

For litigation practice, it is essential to distinguish between the administrative obligation, the procedural requirement and the penalty regime. Mandatory social rent survives as an administrative duty backed by penalties, but not as a precondition of the civil proceedings, and its scope is limited to certain cases of loss of the home through non-payment or mortgage enforcement. The protection of vulnerable persons in possession claims will henceforth operate through the combination of this administrative obligation, the State procedural mechanisms and housing policies, within a framework in which the legal certainty of contracts and the social function of property must find a reasonable balance.

Alburquerque AbogadosLaura GarrigaBarcelona 08/01/2026

See all related publications

Related publications

Legislative update

Changes to urban tenancy law introduced by Royal Decree-Law 29/2026 of 6 October

Royal Decree-Law 29/2026 of 6 October, in force since 8 October 2026, amends the LAU —Spain's urban tenancies act— and adds further measures on residential lettings. For the first time, the reform regulates seasonal tenancies, which are renamed temporary residential tenancies and are only permitted where a genuine reason justifies their temporary nature. It brings letting by rooms within the Act and sets a maximum duration for tourist flats. It strengthens the tenant's position as regards expenses, guarantees, repairs, early termination and pre-emption rights. Outside the LAU, the Royal Decree-Law allows tenants to request an extraordinary extension of up to two years and caps rent increases until the end of 2027. In this article we explain each of these changes, who they affect and what happens to contracts already signed.

MASC and possession claims: case-law criteria on content, form and time limits

Since 3 April 2025, the “Ley Orgánica 1/2025” —LO 1/2025— has introduced, as a general rule, a pre-action requirement consisting of a prior attempt at negotiation or of recourse to an appropriate means of dispute resolution —a “medio adecuado de solución de controversias” or MASC— in civil proceedings on the merits. In the field of residential and commercial tenancies, this requirement has given rise to significant practical problems: the identity between the out-of-court demand and the claim, evidence of the attempt at negotiation, its relationship with the demand that bars reinstatement of the tenancy, and the way it operates in rent claims and in possession claims based on expiry of the contractual term. In Catalonia, some courts, such as the Civil Division of the “Audiencia Provincial” of Girona, the provincial appellate court, have begun to define criteria on the content, the form and the timing of the MASC required in possession claims, thereby shaping a new map of procedural prerequisites for tenancy claims.

What went unsaid in the first lawsuit can no longer be pleaded in the second. Res judicata and preclusion against the reopening of an owners' association resolution

A company that owned a flat sought to argue for a second time, nine years on, whether the by-law prohibition on tourist use in its building applied to it. It tried with new packaging, challenging what had been said at a later general meeting and relying on an administrative-court judgment it had obtained in the meantime. The court upheld the plea of res judicata raised by this Barcelona law firm in defence of the owners' association, ordered the dismissal of the proceedings at the pre-trial hearing itself and awarded costs against the claimant. The lawsuit ended without a trial.

How far may a professional limit their own liability? Exclusion clauses, fees and freedom of contract after Supreme Court Judgment 949/2026

Judgment 949/2026 of 18 June of the “Tribunal Supremo” —Spain's Supreme Court, hence STS— examines a professional services contract entered into by a law firm which capped the professional's maximum liability at the amount of the fees received. The Chamber declares the clause void, not because it amounted to standard terms used against a consumer, but because it is incompatible with the structural principles of the contract and with the compensatory function of contractual liability, even in the context of a negotiated contract between professionals. The Court questions that the provider itself should be able to determine its liability ceiling indirectly through its fees, that the cap should operate regardless of the seriousness of the breach and that it may end up depriving the duty to compensate of all content. Although the case concerns lawyers, the doctrine may be extended to auditors, tax advisers, engineers, consultants and other providers of professional services.

Inheritance, dependency and undue influence. Who may benefit under a will after Catalan Law 13/2026

Law 13/2026 introduces a far-reaching reform of the rules on disqualification from inheriting under the “Código Civil de Cataluña”, the Catalan Civil Code, amending article 412‑5 so as to address expressly the position of those who have provided formalised support of a representative nature and to strengthen the safeguards applying to carers, care homes and providers of care services who are favoured by the deceased. This reform lies at the confluence of the new model of support for the exercise of legal capacity, protection against undue influence and the need to preserve the testamentary freedom of elderly or dependent persons. For private practice, the impact is immediate in wills made by persons who live in care homes, receive private care or have assistants, and it opens up a field of potential litigation concerning conflicts of interest, the rendering of accounts and challenges brought by forced heirs.

Work commissioned without a valid contract: what the contractor can recover from the public authority

Irregular procurement by public authorities, in particular through oral commissions or contracts that are void for breach of the procurement rules, raises a classic conflict between the prohibition of contracting outside the law and the need to prevent the unjust enrichment of a public authority that has received and taken the benefit of the works or services. The judgment of the Third Chamber of the “Tribunal Supremo”, Spain's Supreme Court, of 15 June 2026, Fourth Section, cassation appeal 9117/2024, sets precise limits on the compensation available in such cases: the contractor may recover the actual cost of the works or services, including any value added tax —the Spanish “Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido”, or IVA— which it has been unable to recover, but not the overheads (“gastos generales”) or the profit mark-up (“beneficio industrial”) proper to a validly awarded contract. Moreover, the late-payment interest regime of Law 3/2004 on combating late payment in commercial transactions does not apply automatically; what applies is the statutory interest laid down in the “Ley General Presupuestaria”, Spain's General Budget Act. The question is of particular relevance for local-authority contractors and public bodies which, in practice, continue to receive work without proper contractual cover.

Beyond the LOE time limits: architects' contractual liability and owners' associations' standing after Supreme Court Judgment 860/2026

Judgment 860/2026 of 4 June of the “Tribunal Supremo” —Spain's Supreme Court— deals with a case in which an owners' association brought together ten-year liability actions under the “Ley de Ordenación de la Edificación” —the LOE, Spain's building legislation— and contractual actions under article 1101 of the “Código Civil”, the Spanish Civil Code, against an architect and a technical architect. The LOE actions against the two professionals were barred by limitation, but the Supreme Court confirms that this does not necessarily extinguish the contractual route and recognises the association's standing to bring the actions which originally belonged to the developer cooperative. The decision qualifies the obstacle posed by article 1257 CC as regards successive purchasers and owners' associations and makes it possible to clarify the difference between the LOE guarantee periods, the limitation period under article 18 LOE and the limitation period for the contractual action.

Administrative electronic notifications: how the ten days for them to be deemed refused are counted

The spread of electronic notifications has made the calculation of time limits a critical element in the relationship between citizens, businesses and the “Administraciones Públicas”, Spain's public authorities. Article 43.2 of the “Ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas” —Law 39/2015 of 1 October, the Common Administrative Procedure Act— provides that, where electronic notification is compulsory or has been expressly chosen by the party concerned, it is deemed refused once ten calendar days have elapsed from the moment it was made available without its content being accessed. The judgment of the Third Chamber of the “Tribunal Supremo”, Spain's Supreme Court, of 12 June 2026, in line with the Chamber's official report for the 2025–2026 biennium, clarifies for the first time that those ten calendar days run from the day after the notification is made available to the party concerned on the “sede electrónica”, the authority's electronic portal, or at the “dirección electrónica habilitada única”, the single authorised electronic address. Once the period has elapsed without access, the notification is deemed refused and the time limits for appeal begin to run. The decision has direct consequences for businesses, professionals and citizens required to deal with the authorities by electronic means and underlines the importance of checking electronic mailboxes regularly.