Even though it has been some time since its approval, this week we would like to inform you about the amendments made to the eviction process by Law 37/2011 in reference to new measures to expedite justice procedures.
Many readers, clients and friends who are lessors (landlords) are worried about the increase in recent years, in the number of eviction Court cases and unpaid rental income. This new change is a step in the streamlining of these procedures.
It is true that it still is a judicial court proceeding and as such it is not immediate, so simply depending on the Court, to admit the claim could take some time, but in fact, once the process has started, as of day and under today’s regulations, the eviction process has been simplified and the timing and duration have shorten to minimal.
For example we can highlight that from the beginning of the process and once the Court decrees the claim’s admittance to procedure, apart from the requirement of payment from the debtor, the Court will also set a date for the hearing (if necessary) and a date for the ouster or eviction.
According to the new regulations the lessee or tenant is will be requested to vacate the property within 10 days, pay the plaintiff or claimant, or in case of proposing enervation the lessee must pay the total amount due to the plaintiff. (Enervation stops the eviction process by payment of the debt as long as it complies with the Law i.e. it has not been done before by the same person etc). The lessee may also oppose the claim, within the given time i.e. if he understands that the amount being claimed does not adjust to the real debt.
A significant amendment to the Law is the fact that if the defendant does not pay, does not oppose the claim, or does not show agreement within 10 days of receiving the Court notice, then the Court officer will issue decree ending the process and urging the claimant to enforce the court order, being sufficient the mere request. This is similar to the monitorio process used to claim debts.
Although this change should be seen as a positive change to the Law there are still some contradictions and tricks used by “professional