Fuengirola tourist flat closes by court order, putting end to parties, fights and mess in residential building

The people living in the building described loud music until the early hours, rowdy behaviour, parties, shouting, people coming and going at all hours with suitcases, cups in the swimming pool, dogs running loose in the communal areas and waste left lying around.

This was the usual scene in the building, which prompted the homeowners' association to take the matter to court.

The provincial court has now ruled in favour of the local and upheld the previous ruling ordering the immediate cessation of tourist activity in the flat. The ruling overturns the property owner's appeal in its entirety.

The homeowners' association first launched a complaint when locals observed that the flat had ceased to be just another home in the building.

According to them, ever since the flat was registered with the Andalusian regional government's tourism register in 2018, there had been "constant shouting and screaming", parties and altercations, prompting repeated police interventions.

During the trial, the chair of the residents' association and several neighbouring property owners gave evidence. They reported that it was common to hear music "at 2am and 3am", see a "constant stream of people" with luggage, parties on balconies and in patios, barbecues and fights.

According to the testimonies, when confronted, the visitors would say that they had paid for the property and could do "whatever they wanted".

The ruling considers it particularly significant that the disturbances were not isolated incidents, but rather a pattern that repeated over many years. The court found that there was a "constant flow of people" resulting from very short-term lettings and a succession of behaviours that prevented the other residents from getting a good night's sleep.

The owners appealed, arguing that holiday lets are a perfectly legal activity and cannot be classified as a nuisance. They stated that the incidents had taken place during a very specific period and that those responsible for the problems were themselves and some Finnish friends, not guests staying at the property.

They also said that, following the initial complaints, no further incidents had occurred and that they had even issued a written apology.

The court has partly agreed with this argument. Indeed, it expressly pointed out that a holiday let does not automatically constitute an illegal activity. The decisive factor is not the existence of the holiday let itself, but the consequences it has on the life of locals.

The court stated that restrictions on the right to property must be interpreted narrowly and that the owner may use their property as they see fit, "provided they do not breach any legal regulations".

However, when the activity exceeds "the limits of what is reasonably tolerable" and causes persistent disturbances, locals are entitled to take the matter to court and demand that it cease.

In the court's view, this is precisely what occurred in this case. The ruling considers it proven that the disturbances persisted despite previous requests.

The court also rejected the argument that the owner was unable to control the behaviour of the occupants because their stays were short-term. It stated that the right to property is not absolute, when it causes harm to third parties.

Consequently, the provincial court upheld in full the ruling of Fuengirola court of first instance and confirmed that the tourist activity had been a nuisance to the other inhabitants.

Access the consolidated Fuengirola and Mijas news archive