Suspension of possession claims on grounds of vulnerability until 31 December 2026: an exceptional measure that has become structural

Royal Decree‑Law 16/2025 has once again extended, until 31 December 2026, the extraordinary suspension of certain possession and eviction proceedings on grounds of housing vulnerability, while at the same time maintaining a compensation scheme for landlords and owners, applications for which may be made until 31 January 2027. What began as an exceptional measure linked to the health and economic crisis has become a structural element of the housing protection system, with profound implications for effective judicial protection, for the social function of property and for the balance between the right to housing and owners' right to recover possession. This article critically examines six years of extraordinary suspension of evictions, analysing how vulnerability is defined, the impact on possession proceedings and the effectiveness of the compensation scheme.

22/01/2026

Litigation Landlord and tenant

1.From exceptional measure to normalisation of the extraordinary suspension

The extraordinary suspension of evictions on grounds of vulnerability was initially introduced in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic, as an urgent response to the threat of loss of housing faced by individuals and families affected by the health and economic crisis. The first royal decree‑laws linked the suspension to the declaration of the “estado de alarma” —Spain's state of emergency— and to the situation of social emergency, with a limited time horizon. Successive extensions have, however, prolonged the measure beyond the pandemic, incorporating housing vulnerability as an autonomous ground for protection. Royal Decree‑Law 16/2025 extends the suspension until 31 December 2026, so that, in practice, the system will have been in operation for six continuous years.

This prolongation raises the question whether we are still dealing with an exceptional measure or whether we are already faced with a structural mechanism for the protection of housing. The repeated extensions and the widening of the situations of vulnerability suggest that the extraordinary suspension has been absorbed into the ordinary architecture of housing policy, even though formally it is given effect through royal decree‑laws. The exceptional character is blurred, and the civil justice system must adapt to the constant presence of a vulnerability filter capable of halting evictions in certain cases.

2.How housing vulnerability is defined and the scope of the suspension

The extraordinary suspension applies to possession and eviction proceedings in which the occupier of the principal residence is in a situation of economic and social vulnerability, defined by reference to criteria of income, household composition, disability, dependency and risk of exclusion. The legislation requires the court, in the light of the documents produced and of the social services reports, to assess whether vulnerability is present and, where appropriate, to order the suspension of the eviction for a given period, during which the public authorities must adopt measures to address the situation, such as the offer of alternative housing or rent subsidies.

The scope of the suspension is not absolute. Certain situations are excluded, such as occupations without any authorising instrument of properties belonging to individuals who need them as their principal residence, or cases involving violence or unlawful activities. The suspension is aimed principally at possession claims against vulnerable tenants or mortgage borrowers brought by large-scale landlords —“grandes tenedores”— or financial institutions, although the legislation has progressively widened its scope to other situations. The extension until 31 December 2026 maintains this scheme, with specific adjustments.

The way housing vulnerability is defined has been refined over time, incorporating references to the “Ley 12/2023, por el derecho a la vivienda” —Spain's Housing Act— and to the criteria applied by the social services. The assessment nonetheless remains case-by-case and depends to a large extent on the information available and on the capacity of the social services to issue their reports within the time allowed. Judicial practice has developed its own criteria, with differences between territories, which gives rise to a degree of inconsistency in the application of the suspension.

3.Effective judicial protection and delay in possession proceedings

The prolongation of the extraordinary suspension over six years raises questions as to its compatibility with the right to effective judicial protection under art. 24 CE, in particular in its dimension as a right to enforcement of court decisions within a reasonable time. The suspension does not affect the conduct of the declaratory proceedings or the delivery of judgment, but it can halt enforcement of the eviction for prolonged periods, which in practice prevents the owner from recovering possession of the dwelling or property.

The “Tribunal Constitucional”, Spain's Constitutional Court, has accepted that effective judicial protection does not guarantee an absolute right to immediate enforcement of decisions, and that the legislature may lay down limits and adjustments having regard to other constitutional rights and interests, such as the right to housing and the protection of vulnerable persons. What matters is that the limitations should be proportionate and reasonable and should not deprive the right to enforcement of its substance. The extraordinary suspension is justified by the need to prevent situations in which people are left without housing and to give the authorities time to offer alternative solutions, but its prolongation over time and the absence of effective responses in many cases may place that balance under strain.

From the owners' perspective, the suspension may be perceived as an intense restriction of their right to property and to the free disposal of their assets. Art. 33 CE recognises the right to property and its social function, but requires that any deprivation be effected by expropriation with compensation. The extraordinary suspension does not amount to an expropriation, but it is a temporary limitation of use and enjoyment, which must be adequately compensated if it is not to prove disproportionate. This is where the compensation scheme provided for by the legislation comes into play.

4.Compensation for the owner: design, effectiveness and time limit

Royal Decree‑Law 16/2025 maintains a compensation scheme for landlords and owners affected by the extraordinary suspension of evictions. The compensation is conceived as an indemnity for the financial loss arising from the inability to recover possession and from the failure to receive rent during the period of suspension. Applications may be made until 31 January 2027, which extends the time horizon of the measure beyond the suspension itself.

The design of the compensation raises several questions. First, the determination of who is entitled to it: it is aimed principally at small owners and landlords who are not large-scale landlords, although the legislation has progressively adjusted this criterion. Second, the calculation of the amount: it is usually linked to the rent not received or to the market value of the use of the property, subject to maximum limits and budgetary constraints. Third, the procedure: the application is processed by the competent authority, which must verify that the requirements are met and decide within the time allowed.

The actual effectiveness of the compensation scheme has been the subject of criticism. In many cases owners have encountered difficulties in obtaining the indemnity, whether because of the complexity of the procedure, the lack of information, the insufficiency of the budget appropriations or the delay in reaching decisions. The compensation, conceived as a counterweight to the suspension, has not always fulfilled its function of balancing the sacrifice imposed on the owner. The extension until 2026 and the extension of the application period until January 2027 offer a fresh opportunity to improve the administration and effectiveness of the compensation, but they also prolong the uncertainty.

5.Six years of extraordinary suspension: a critical assessment

After six years of extraordinary suspension of evictions, the legal and practical assessment is ambivalent. On the one hand, the measure has prevented numerous evictions of vulnerable individuals and families, has given the authorities time to intervene and has reinforced the central place of the right to housing on the public agenda. It has operated as an emergency mechanism that has cushioned the impact of successive crises on access to housing.

On the other hand, the prolongation of the suspension has produced collateral effects on effective judicial protection and on owners' confidence in the stability of the legal framework. The perception that court decisions may remain unenforced for long periods can erode legal certainty and deter investment in rented housing, particularly on the part of small owners. The inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the compensation aggravates this sense of imbalance.

From a constitutional perspective, the key lies in maintaining the balance between the right to housing and the right to property, avoiding a situation in which the protection of housing vulnerability becomes a disproportionate structural limitation of owners' right to recover possession. The social function of property allows duties and restrictions to be imposed, but it also requires compensation mechanisms and a reasonable time limitation. An exceptional regime cannot be prolonged indefinitely without turning into a new normality calling for ordinary legislative treatment.

6.Conclusions

The extraordinary suspension of possession claims and evictions on grounds of housing vulnerability, extended by Royal Decree‑Law 16/2025 until 31 December 2026, has ceased to be a short-term measure and has become a structural element of the housing protection system. Six years of continuous operation call for a reconsideration of its nature and of how it fits within the constitutional framework, as well as of its impact on effective judicial protection and on the right to property.

The compensation scheme for owners, applications for which may be made until 31 January 2027, is an essential component in balancing the sacrifice imposed by the suspension, but its practical effectiveness has been uneven. For litigation practice, it is essential to build the extraordinary suspension into procedural strategy, to anticipate its possible effects on the enforcement of decisions and to advise owners and tenants on the avenues of protection and compensation available.

The future of the extraordinary suspension beyond 2026 will raise the question whether it should be consolidated as an ordinary mechanism for the protection of housing vulnerability, with a stable and systematic legislative framework, or whether it should be brought back to its exceptional character, with a clear temporal and substantive delimitation. In any event, the experience accumulated over these six years offers a valuable legal laboratory for reflecting on how to give balanced expression to the protection of housing, the social function of property and effective judicial protection in a context of growing pressure on the residential market.

Alburquerque AbogadosLaura GarrigaBarcelona 22/01/2026

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.