Granada (EFE) property such as the pool or the gardens.
The Civil Chamber of the high court thus upholds the appeals filed by the plaintiffs against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Jaén, which did not appreciate any infringement of personal freedom, understanding that the statutes in which the community of owners relied for imposing such an obligation does not even restrict the use of common areas.
On the contrary, the Court considers that it establishes the form of use (nudism), a formula that, the provincial body pointed out, may be “singular or anomalous due to its particularity”, but that it is not so much in the town of Almería where they are located. the apartments.
The ruling of the Supreme Court, to which EFE has had access, now annuls that ruling in the second instance, which confirmed the ruling at the time by a Court of First Instance 3 of Jaén, and condemns the community of owners to compensate to the plaintiffs for the infringement of their fundamental rights with one thousand euros to each of them.
The plaintiffs will be able to enjoy the common areas of the community even if they do not practice nudism
The origin of the conflict lies in the coexistence of two different communities on the same residential complex, in which the statutes of one of them prevailed, although the Supreme Court understands that there is a “patent error” in the assessment of the evidence that supported that claim. conclusion.
And this because the simple reading of the minutes of the community demonstrates “with evidence” that said statutes were not approved, an issue that was not addressed in the sentences handed down in the previous proceedings.
Given the lack of statutory provision that justifies the deprivation of the enjoyment of the common elements of which the plaintiffs are co-owners, continues the Supreme Court, it is appreciated that the imposition of nudism violates the right to equality, supposes a discrimination of the plaintiffs for reasons of their ideas and thoughts and attentive to their freedom of movement and their right to privacy.
Hence, it considers the appeal of the plaintiff owners, “because it is not possible arbitrarily, by acts of force, through the contracting of private security services, to prevent the plaintiffs from enjoying the rights that correspond to them in the horizontal property regime over common elements if they do not practice nudism”.
Because nudism, he alleges, is a personal option “perfectly respectable and legitimate, but the practice of which cannot be required without a basis for it.”