The Supreme Court has recognized the right of an Ibizan couple to receive compensation for the economic damages suffered during the judicial process for a house they had occupied for rent and which was auctioned in 2015.
The resolution, dated October 21, 2025, puts an end to a judicial conflict that lasted more than seven years and that had its origin in the foreclosure of the property, located in Vila. After the auction, the former tenants exercised their right of first refusal, presenting a bank guarantee of 102,000 euros to match the successful bidder’s offer and cover expenses.
However, the handover of the apartment was delayed while the new owner and the tenants litigated over the validity of the withdrawal. During this time, the couple was forced to rent another apartment, which was finally considered a compensable damage.
The Supreme Court speaks of civil liability, not of possession
In its ruling, the Supreme Court determines that the resistance of the successful bidder to deliver the property, despite the existence of a final judgment and a valid guarantee, was an unjustified action. Therefore, it orders that the plaintiffs be compensated for the rents paid between July 2018 and June 2019, the exact amount of which will be set in the execution of the judgment.
The court clarifies that the case is not about a possessory conflict, but a case of civil liability derived from the non-compliance with a judicial decision, ruling out the application of the rules on the good or bad faith of the possessor.
The judgment also exempts both parties from the payment of costs and orders the return of the judicial deposits made to file the appeals.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of the tenancy withdrawal as a defense mechanism for tenants in foreclosure cases, and sets a precedent on the obligation of those who, after losing a lawsuit, unreasonably delay the delivery of a property.
