Constitutional Court ruling on lease agreements and de facto unions

In its Ruling 47/2025 of January 21, 2025, the Constitutional Court did not rule unconstitutional article 12.1 of Law 6/2006 of February 27, which approves the New Urban Lease Regime (NRAU), interpreted to mean that a landlord is not required to inform a tenant’s de facto partner, who did not sign the lease, of their opposition to lease renewal.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the Constitution does not mandate identical legal effects for de facto unions and marriage, as there are key differences between them. Specifically, the Constitutional Court noted that marriage requires public registration and the tenant’s marital status is one of the necessary elements of a lease agreement, which is not the case for de facto unions. The Constitutional Court highlighted that equating de facto unions with marriage would impose an unreasonable burden on landlords to determine whether a tenant is in a de facto union and, if so, to identify the de facto partner.

Based primarily on these considerations, the Constitutional Court determined that the interpretation in question is consistent with the Constitution and does not infringe upon the principles of equality or legal certainty.

However, there was one dissenting vote on this decision, in which it was argued that the above interpretation imposes undue restrictions on the fundamental rights of individuals in de facto unions, hindering their ability to start and protect their families and promote their social and economic independence. The dissenting opinion underscored the violation of the principles of universality and equality. It also highlighted that the objective of the rule in question is to safeguard the family home, a common concern across various family structures. Also, the dissenting opinion noted that a ruling of unconstitutionality would not impose an undue burden on landlords, as tenants in de facto unions could readily provide landlords with any information they may require. In other words, once the tenant informs the landlord of the de facto union and identifies the de facto partner, there would be no reason to differentiate between marriage and de facto unions.

The Constitutional Court concluded that landlords are not required to notify a tenant’s de facto partner, who did not sign the lease, of their opposition to lease renewal. This ruling is based on the understanding that the Constitution does not require that the legal effects of de facto unions and marriage be identical. This ruling reflects the complexity of family relationships and the need to balance tenants’ rights with landlords’ obligations, respecting the protections sought by both parties.