The Provincial Court of Almería has confirmed the sentence of a neighbor to stop using his home for three years due to the inconvenience caused in the community of owners. The man starred threats to other ownersconstant noises and altercations that forced the Police to intervene on dozens of occasions. Justice considers that his behavior was persistent and dangerous, which is why they justify one of the most severe measures provided for in the Horizontal Property Law.
According to the ruling of January 13, 2026, the conflict lasted for months, with multiple neighborhood complaints about noiseinsults and episodes of aggression. Neighbors reported a continuous situation of serious altercations, with threats, even with knives or sticks, loud music at all hours, beatings and violent behavior. In the procedure, up to 35 interventions were accredited by the Local Police, who attended repeatedly for these incidents, in addition to several complaints to the Civil Guard.
The defendant claimed that he had ceased his behavior months before the trial and that he was in the process of recovery. The Court of First Instance and Investigation of El Ejido rejected this argument, understanding that the events had to be assessed at the time they occurred and that the supposed subsequent improvement did not eliminate the seriousness of what happened.
Justice applies the Horizontal Property Law to protect the community
The Provincial Court of Almería supported the decision to deprive the neighbor of the use of his home based on the Horizontal Property Law, specifically its article 7.2, which prohibits owners from carrying out annoying, unhealthy, dangerous or illicit activities in their homes. This same provision establishes that, if the seriousness of the facts is proven, the judge can agree not only to the cessation of the activity, but also to deprive the right to use the home for a period of up to three years, as is the case in this case.
The court recalled that article 9.1 of the same law obliges neighbors to make diligent use of their home and not harm coexistence with the rest of the owners. In this case, it was considered proven that the defendant repeatedly failed to comply with these obligations, creating a situation incompatible with community life.
It was also rejected that the measure violated the constitutional right to housing, understanding that it is not an absolute right and that it can be limited when illegal conduct occurs that affects third parties. In this sense, they concluded that the interest of all neighbors, especially in a community with common areas, gardens and a swimming pool, should prevail over the individual harm of the offender.
However, an appeal could be filed against the sentence before the Supreme Court.