A neighbour makes life impossible: the cessation action
Last updated 2026-09-01 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826
The short answer
The community brings the cessation action under article 7.2 of the Horizontal Property Act. First the president demands immediate cessation from the offender and the owners' meeting authorises the claim. Interim cessation may be sought with the claim. The judgment can bar use of the flat for up to three years and, where the offender is a tenant, end his rights and order his eviction.
The flat above is let by the night through a platform. Every weekend a different group arrives, with suitcases at two in the morning, music and people on the terrace until four. You work shifts and have not slept properly for eight months. The owner lives in another city, replies that his guests have been warned and does nothing. The community never approved that activity. The last meeting discussed it, but nothing was agreed in writing.
The case, in five lines
- What is brought
- Cessation action under article 7.2 of the Horizontal Property Act, brought by the president against the owner and, where applicable, against the occupant.
- Before which court
- The Civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) where the building stands, under the ordinary form of civil proceedings in all that the article does not expressly regulate.
- Deadline
- The prohibited activity can be fought for as long as it continues, with no lapse period. What does follow a strict order is the sequence: the president's demand, the owners' resolution and the claim.
- Who can bring it
- The president of the community, with the prior authorisation of the owners' meeting duly convened for that purpose. The initiative may come from him or from any owner or occupant.
- Financial risk
- Without a verifiable demand and a certified resolution of the meeting, the interim measure falls away and the claim is exposed. Losing means costs borne by the community and an even worse atmosphere in the building.
The prohibition reaches the owner and the occupant alike
Article 7.2 of the Horizontal Property Act states that neither the owner nor the occupant of a flat or premises may carry on there, or elsewhere in the building, activities prohibited by the by-laws, harmful to the property, or contrary to the general rules on activities that are disturbing, unhealthy, noxious, dangerous or unlawful. The prohibition draws no line between an owner and a mere occupant.
That double reach explains a rule appearing later in the same paragraph: the claim must be directed against the owner and, where applicable, against the occupant of the flat or premises. There is no choosing between them. An owner who lets the flat and looks the other way is not outside the case for not living there, and a tenant causing the problem cannot shelter behind not being the owner.
The sequence is demand, meeting and claim, in that order
That same article 7.2 requires the president of the community, on his own initiative or that of any owner or occupant, to call on whoever carries on the prohibited activity to cease it immediately, warning that court action will follow. It is a formal demand with concrete content, not a chat in the hallway or a message in the neighbours' group.
If the offender persists, the president may, with the prior authorisation of the owners' meeting duly convened for that purpose, bring the cessation action against him, which in all the article does not expressly regulate follows the ordinary form of civil proceedings. The meeting must be convened with that item on the agenda, and its resolution is certified by whoever acts as secretary.
Article 249.1.8 of the Civil Procedure Act confirms the route: the actions the Horizontal Property Act grants to owners' meetings and to owners are decided under the ordinary form of proceedings, provided they do not concern purely money claims. Skipping either preliminary step gains nothing: it makes the claim arguable before the noise itself is ever discussed.
Interim cessation can be applied for with the claim itself
Article 7.2 provides that, once the claim is filed together with proof of the verifiable demand made to the offender and the certified resolution of the owners' meeting, the court may order as an interim measure the immediate cessation of the prohibited activity, with a warning that disobedience is a criminal offence, and may adopt whatever interim measures are needed to make that order effective.
Those two documents are the key to the measure. Without proof of the demand and without the certified resolution, the court lacks the basis the article itself requires, and the neighbour goes on letting by the night while the case runs. That is why the demand goes by burofax with proof of delivery and the certificate is requested from the secretary as soon as the meeting ends.
The judgment can bar use for three years and evict the tenant
If the judgment upholds the claim, article 7.2 says, it may order, in addition to the definitive cessation of the prohibited activity and any compensation due, that the right to use the flat or premises be withdrawn for a period of no more than three years, according to the seriousness of the breach and the harm caused to the community.
And it adds the sting that changes the calculation for an owner who lets: where the offender is not the owner, the judgment may declare all his rights over the flat or premises definitively extinguished, together with his immediate eviction. The community therefore does not depend on the landlord being willing to terminate the tenancy with his tenant.
Since April 2025 tourist use requires prior approval
Article 7.3 of the Horizontal Property Act, in force since 3 April 2025, requires an owner wishing to carry on the activity referred to in article 5(e) of the Urban Leases Act, on the terms of the tourism regulations, to obtain beforehand the express approval of the owners' community on the terms of paragraph 12 of article 17.
Article 17.12 sets that majority: the resolution approving, limiting, conditioning or prohibiting that activity, whether or not it alters the constitutive deed or the by-laws, requires the favourable vote of three fifths of all owners representing in turn three fifths of the participation quotas. The same majority governs the setting of special charges or an increase in that flat's share of common expenses, not exceeding 20 per cent.
The same paragraph states that these resolutions have no retroactive effect. Hence two things should be kept apart: an activity started without the express approval article 7.3 requires, whose cessation the president may demand under the regime of the preceding paragraph, and a prohibition resolution looking forward, which does not by itself erase earlier situations.
How we run the case, step by step
- 1
Document the activity with objective evidence
We gather local police reports, sound level readings, a notarial record of a typical night and screenshots of the platform listing with its booking calendar. Without objective evidence the action turns into one set of neighbours' word against another's.
- 2
Formal demand by the president
We draft the demand for immediate cessation that article 7.2 places in the president's hands, describing the activity and warning of court action, and we send it by burofax with proof of delivery to the owner and to the occupant.
- 3
Meeting convened for the purpose and certificate
We prepare the notice with the item expressly on the agenda, the resolution authorising the president to bring the action and the secretary's certificate, which is one of the two documents supporting the interim measure.
- 4
Claim with an application for interim cessation
We file the claim against the owner and, where applicable, the occupant, enclosing proof of the demand and the certificate, and we apply for immediate cessation with the warning of disobedience provided for in article 7.2.
- 5
Trial and quantification of the harm
At trial we sustain the accumulated evidence and quantify the community's loss: extra cleaning and repairs, consumption, security and the loss of value of the flats affected by the constant use of the entrance and the lift.
- 6
Enforcement of the judgment
Once the order is obtained, we monitor compliance with the cessation, press for the withdrawal of use during the period set and, where the offender was the tenant, for his rights over the flat to be extinguished and for his immediate eviction.
The evidence that decides the case
- The local police reports on night-time noise, with the date and time of each call-out.
- The sound level report with readings taken inside your home during rest hours.
- The notarial record made on a typical night, describing what happens on the landing and the terrace.
- Screenshots of the platform listing, with the booking calendar and the dated reviews.
- The president's burofax with its proof of delivery, evidencing the verifiable demand to cease.
- The minutes of the meeting with the item on the agenda and the secretary's certificate of the resolution.
What closes the door
- Suing without the president's prior demand. Article 7.2 requires it before the action, and without proof of it the chance of obtaining interim cessation falls away.
- Convening the meeting without expressly including the item on the agenda. The resolution becomes arguable, and with it the authorisation underpinning the president's standing.
- Directing the claim only at the noisy tenant. Article 7.2 requires the owner to be sued and, where applicable, the occupant of the flat or premises as well.
- Approving a ban on tourist use by simple majority. Article 17.12 requires three fifths of owners and of quotas to approve, limit, condition or prohibit that activity.
- Trusting that a prohibition resolution by itself closes flats already operating. Article 17.12 itself states that these resolutions have no retroactive effect.
The law that applies
- Art. 7.2 LPH. Prohibits both owner and occupant from activities banned by the by-laws, harmful or disturbing, orders a prior demand by the president, allows the cessation action with the meeting's authorisation, permits interim cessation and empowers the judgment to withdraw use for up to three years and extinguish the occupant's rights. BOE-A-1960-10906
- Art. 7.3 LPH. Requires, since 3 April 2025, an owner wishing to carry on the activity of article 5(e) of the Urban Leases Act to obtain the community's express prior approval, and refers to the regime of the preceding paragraph to demand cessation where it is carried on without such approval. BOE-A-1960-10906
- Art. 17.12 LPH. Requires three fifths of owners and of quotas to approve, limit, condition or prohibit that activity and to set special charges or raise that flat's share of common expenses by up to 20 per cent, and denies those resolutions any retroactive effect. BOE-A-1960-10906
- Art. 249.1.8.º LEC. Sends to the ordinary form of civil proceedings, whatever the amount, the actions the Horizontal Property Act grants to owners' meetings and to owners, unless they concern purely money claims. BOE-A-2000-323
- Art. 5 LO 1/2025. Requires, as a condition of admissibility in civil matters, prior resort to an appropriate dispute resolution method with the same subject matter, and accepts negotiation carried out directly by the parties or their lawyers. BOE-A-2025-76
Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue the neighbour alone, or must the community do it?
The cessation action of article 7.2 is brought by the president of the community, with the prior authorisation of the owners' meeting duly convened for that purpose. The initiative, however, may come from any owner or occupant: you can ask the president to make the demand and, if he does not, raise the matter so that the meeting rules on it.
Can the activity be stopped before judgment arrives?
Yes. Article 7.2 allows the court, once the claim is filed with proof of the verifiable demand and the certified resolution of the meeting, to order as an interim measure the immediate cessation of the prohibited activity, with a warning that disobedience is a criminal offence, along with whatever interim measures are needed to make it effective.
Can the community remove the tenant causing the problem?
A judgment upholding the claim can reach that far. Article 7.2 provides that, where the offender is not the owner, the judgment may declare all his rights over the flat or premises definitively extinguished, together with his immediate eviction. Against the owner, the judgment may also withdraw the right of use for no more than three years.
Does the neighbour need the community's permission to let nightly?
Since 3 April 2025, yes. Article 7.3 of the Horizontal Property Act requires an owner wishing to carry on the activity of article 5(e) of the Urban Leases Act, on the terms of the tourism regulations, to obtain the express prior approval of the community on the terms of paragraph 12 of article 17.
What majority is needed to ban tourist use in the building?
Article 17.12 requires the favourable vote of three fifths of all owners representing in turn three fifths of the participation quotas, whether or not the resolution alters the constitutive deed or the by-laws. That same majority governs the setting of special charges or an increase of up to 20 per cent in that flat's share of the common expenses.
This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.