The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has rejected and confirmed the request for suspension of eviction requested by a tenant in a situation of social and economic hardship the starting order issued by the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Puerto de la Cruz. The decision therefore rejects appeal presented by the defense of the person concerned.
The man tried to prevent the eviction by arguing that his health and economic conditions left him in a situation of complete helplessness. According to the file, the tenant suffers from a complete disability 72%, recognized since March 2018, as a result of a head injury causing cognitive impairment, Functional limitations and behavioral changes.
Also perceive a non-contributory pension of 421.40 euros monthly, a figure that the defense says leaves him below the minimum income threshold and prevents him from accessing alternative housing.
There is also the report from the social service Puerto de la Cruz City Councilof September 15, 2023, in which the risk situation of the person concerned was confirmed and detailed that he was referred to the “Base 25 Project” of Cáritas and the Acquired Brain Injury Association. The defense claimed that given the impossibility of renting another house and living on her income, suspending the launch was the only way to “leave a helpless person completely helpless.”
The property owner rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was inadmissible has not met the payment obligation or delivery of the income owed, an essential condition for the appeal in such proceedings under Article 449.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also pointed out that the co-defendant had already left the property and that her dangerous situation had not been proven.
The court based its decision on the current procedural rules. The decision thus underlines the admission of appeals in enforcement proceedings “extremely restrictive and limited”since the Code of Civil Procedure only allows this type of appeal in expressly provided exceptional cases. Since the contested decision did not terminate the proceedings or prevent its continuation, it did not open an appeal.
The court referred to Article 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which regulates resources at the enforcement stage, and emphasized that “the assessment of the circumstances related to the socio-economic situation of the complainant and a possible Danger of exclusion from housingfor a possible stay of proceedings or initiation, lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and its decision cannot be appealed.
The Provincial Court also recalled that the judicial control of situations of particular danger, regulated by Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 and its extensions, does not provide for a two-stage review of decisions to suspend launches. Furthermore, the Magistrate Committee of the Court’s Civil Divisions had unanimously adopted the criterion in its meeting on January 27, 2025 Reject objections in these cases.
As a result, the court ruled that the reason for Inadmissibility of the appeal became a reason for rejection, which implies that Imposition of legal costs on the complainant and the loss of the deposit paid on appeal.
About The Author
