The case that changes everything
He dispute originates from a community of Villajoyosa (Alicante)where a the neighbor installed a charging station for your electric car in your garage space. He previously announced his intention to the communitybut he challenged the action, alleging that it affected common elements.
He Supreme Court ruled in favor of owner. THE December 2024 decision establishes that under article 17.5 of the law on horizontal property, Just inform the community in advance the installation of a charging station in one unique place from the garage.
What the law says about horizontal property
He section 17.5 of the LPH collect verbatim:
“THE installation of a charging station for electric vehicles For private use inside building parking lotprovided that it is located in a unique placethis will only require the prior communication to the community.”
THE Supreme Court decision supports this writingemphasizing that he cannot impose himself owner no additional requirements such as community agreement wave majority approval. He legal objective it is precisely facilitate implementation of the charging infrastructure.
What if he crosses common areas?
A key point of failure the thing is routing wiring through common elements (walls, ceilings, columns) does not require community authorization aloneas long as it does not cause disproportionate damage. This is how he expresses it Supreme considering that the opposite would cancel in practice the right included in the LPH.
A decisive step towards electrification
This the award establishes jurisprudence and becomes a clear reference For owners, installers And property managers. This assumes a removal of legal barriers move forward in electric mobility In multi-family buildings.
No changes the lawbut yes interprets in a binding manner: The installation of a charging station in your private parking space is no longer subject to a neighborhood vote.
Key aspects of the decision
- It is only necessary prior communication to the community, not to permission.
- The community cannot veto the installation unless there is proven harm.
- The passage through common elements does not prevent the right recognized by law.
With that failedhe Supreme Court harmonizes the standard with the decarbonization targetswithout leaving interpretive gaps about him Scope of article 17.5 LPH.
About The Author
