The Supreme Court Has Banned The Expulsion Of Tenants Of Social Housing Sold To A Foundation In Madrid

2021-02-25   |   by CusiGO

The civil division of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of encasa Cibeles, a company mainly controlled by Goldman Sachs, which bought nearly 3000 social housing units from the Madrid community in 2013 and demanded the eviction of tenants from one of the properties. Based on the judgments of the courts since 2017 (as confirmed by several Supreme Court rulings since 2019), the judges concluded that encasa Cibeles “does not have the status of owner and lessor of these houses”.

The ruling concerns a rental agreement signed in 2009 between tenants and the Madrid Institute for community public housing ivima. The property is part of 2935 public housing units sold by the community to encasa Cibeles (invested by Goldman Sachs and Azora Fund) and is part of 32 promotional activities. In 2016, encasa Cibeles informed the lessee that the contract would expire in one year. Therefore, the lessee argued that its rent was not subject to the general provisions of the urban Leasing Act (Lau), but was an official protective housing for public promotion, and the law provided for “extension” It is enforced every two years because the lessee complies with the conditions leading to the award of the lease contract. ”

When the company brought the case to court, the defendant made the same argument and questioned the legality of encasa Cibeles’ purchase of public housing in the Madrid community. The court of first instance rejected the second argument but did admit the first, thus preventing deportation. The appeal ended in the second instance with the same result, and an appeal was requested to the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous ruling released on Thursday, it was voted on January 20, confirming that deportation is impossible. However, in the light of the recent decisions of other judges, they repeatedly said that the sale of 2935 properties was invalid because ivima did not prove that the properties were not needed to achieve its purpose, The civil Chamber noted that “no action was taken because the title on which the action was based was invalid”. That is to say, because encasa Cibeles is not the owner of these properties.

The ruling makes no mention of the recent judicial ruling on the issue: earlier this month, a court rejected Isabel Diaz ayuso’s appeal against the sale’s invalidity, which is still open to appeal. But it does refer to previous statements, including supreme court orders and orders in 2019 and 2020, Finally, “it is an indisputable fact that the ruling of the disputed administrative jurisdiction is final and that the ruling declares the whole procedure leading to the award of the contract null and void.”.