00:00In light of the many controversies that often arise for people who live or reside in apartment complexes or buildings
00:08subject to the horizontal property regime,
00:12specifically regarding the use of common areas in the company of their pets,
00:23On June 26, 2026, the Constitutional Court made a very interesting pronouncement on the subject, as follows:
00:32as reiterated by its jurisprudence on the matter.
00:36Specifically, it refers to ruling T-199 of that date, we repeat, June 26, 2026.
00:46In that ruling, which dealt specifically with the case of a person who had been prohibited from using the elevator
00:55of the building where he lives with his pet,
00:58The Court found that this determination or prohibition imposed on him by the authorities of the complex, administrator and council was not valid.
01:09of administration, was in violation of the legal order.
01:13Why did the Court find or reach that conclusion?
01:17Because, the Court says, having pets, the possibility for people to have pets, is a development of the
01:27fundamental rights to the free development of personality,
01:31to the right to personal and family privacy.
01:34From that point of view, if having pets is then considered in relation to the development of those constitutionally guaranteed rights,
01:43It is not acceptable for authorities of a much lower category, such as, we repeat, the administrator of a building or the council
01:50administration,
01:51or even the co-owners' assembly itself, limit the exercise of said powers which, we insist,
01:58They have the character of being of constitutional rank.
02:03Additionally, and the Court reiterates this in the judgment,
02:07It is worth noting that the National Code of Security and Citizen Coexistence,
02:12better known as the Police Code,
02:15It also establishes that it is not permissible to enshrine this type of prohibition,
02:22neither in the horizontal property regulations, obviously, nor in the coexistence manuals.
02:27From this point of view, the Court then found, and so ordered,
02:32that prohibition that had been established for whoever had filed for guardianship,
02:36He had to get up or he didn't have to submit to that order.
02:42However, and the Court also draws attention to this point,
02:45Obviously, it cannot be prohibited; it is not possible to prohibit the use of common areas in the company of pets.
02:52But what is feasible is to establish charges through property regulations
02:58or from the pet owner's code of conduct for events where the pet
03:05cause any harm.
03:07So, let's think about it: if a pet damages a common asset,
03:10or, for example, relieves themselves in the common areas,
03:14It is quite obvious that the burden can be imposed in the coexistence manual.
03:19so that the pet owner must repair the damage
03:23or keep clean the place that your pet may have soiled.
03:29In short, and from a somewhat broad point of view,
03:33We could say it's a problem of simple logic,
03:36But, as logic sometimes fails to prevail,
03:39The Court then found it necessary to make these clarifications
03:43in the ruling we have referred to.
03:47We hope this legal tip has been helpful to many people.
03:51also, just as suddenly, many pets,
03:54We also thank those who regularly follow us.
04:06Thank you.
04:07Thank you.
04:07Thank you.
04:07Thank you.
04:10Thank you.
04:11Thank you.
04:11Thank you.
04:12Thank you.
04:12Thank you.
Comentarios