The roof was used for drying clothes and stood level with a neighbouring home’s private terrace. In a ruling dated 24 April, the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona upheld the community’s decision to refuse an outdoor air-conditioning unit there. It affirmed an earlier dismissal by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 49 de Barcelona.
The owner had asked to place the compressor on the roof and run its connecting pipe through the interior courtyard inside a PVC channel. After the community rejected that location, he argued in court that the installation would neither harm the building nor prevent use of the roof. The proposed work involved common areas, including the roof and courtyard, as well as the owner’s private flat.
The owner appealed, saying there was no other feasible place: his flat had no balcony and, he argued, municipal rules prevented installation on the façade. The appeal court ruled that those constraints did not require the other owners to approve the proposed works. Nor did they give him a right to use or alter common areas.
Under article 553-36 of the Código civil de Cataluña, owners may carry out works within their private property provided they do not harm other owners. The work must also leave the building’s configuration and exterior appearance unchanged. Catalan horizontal-property rules, set out in Book Five of the Civil Code of Catalonia, treat roofs as common elements, including where their use is assigned exclusively to one owner. Work affecting common elements, such as a roof or interior courtyard, requires community authorisation.
The judges considered the roof’s established use as a clothes-drying area and the position of the adjoining flat, whose private terrace was beside the roof. The compressor could affect the terrace’s appearance. Its noise and vibration concerned the judges. So did the hot air it would expel.
The community also cited the possibility that approval could lead other owners to seek permission for compressors on the same relatively small roof. Multiple units could increase the noise and heat affecting the neighbour.
A different location was raised during the proceedings: a roof above the adjoining home. Technicians said it was feasible, although it would require a longer pipe route and a more complex installation. The court did not authorise it because the original claim challenged the community decision and sought permission for the submitted plan, which placed the unit on the roof. Approval for that alternative location would require a separate application to the community.
Article 456.1 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil prevents an appeal from changing the subject of the case or introducing claims that were not made in the first-instance proceedings. The judges therefore could not grant permission for the alternative location.
The owner also argued that the community had abused its rights by refusing permission. The Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona rejected that claim, referring to a Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña ruling dated 30 January 2023. It found the community had a legitimate aim: preserving the roof’s open appearance and its use for drying clothes. The community also sought to prevent possible disturbance to the adjoining home.
The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld. The court did not order the owner to pay the appeal costs, citing doubts in the case: there had been no earlier community decision rejecting a similar request, and technicians had identified another possible location. The ruling concerns the proposed roof installation; it does not impose a general ban on residential air-conditioning units in Barcelona or Catalonia.
