The ruling has left Madrid City Council weighing a legal appeal over Alejandro Ibáñez, an 81-year-old resident who has refused to leave his municipal apartment in La Latina. Issued on July 2, the court's decision found that the city had not provided sufficient technical justification to suspend Ibáñez's right to remain in his home during planned renovations. It is the council's first impressive legal setback in its effort to clear the building for a major rehabilitation project.
Mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida confirmed on Tuesday that the city is reviewing its options after the ruling. He said the building faces structural and safety issues, and noted that two other residents had previously been evicted with court approval based on the same documentation. The mayor also said tenants who temporarily move out would be allowed to return under the same rental terms, without losing any rights.
The dispute began in June 2024, when the city told 61 elderly residents of the San Francisco Municipal Apartments on Calle de Jerte they would need to move temporarily for a €3.8 million renovation. The project aims to address structural damage and outdated climate systems, as well as dampness and leaks. Most residents accepted alternative accommodation, with the promise of returning after the 14-month works. Four tenants, including Ibáñez, refused to leave, fearing they might not be allowed back. Two have since been evicted; Ibáñez and one other tenant remain.
The city sought court authorization to enter the apartments and enforce the evictions. Two courts had previously sided with the council, but the latest ruling took a different view. The judge focused on whether the city could suspend a resident's housing rights without strong technical evidence. The city's basic evidence, a brief internal memo, did not qualify as a sufficient technical report to prove that the building had to be completely empty for the works. The court also found no imminent danger or planned demolition, and said phased construction that allowed residents to stay had not been ruled out.
Opposition parties and local groups have criticized the city's approach. Más Madrid spokesperson Rita Maestre said less disruptive options were available. The neighborhood association La Chispera called on the council to end what it described as a strategy of pressure and speed up the renovations so residents can return to normal life. Socialist councillor Ana Lima urged the mayor to drop any appeal, calling the city's actions unjustified and harmful to the elderly tenants.
Ibáñez, who has lived in the San Francisco apartments for 15 years, welcomed the court's decision but remains cautious. He says the city is using the building's condition as a pretext for eviction instead of carrying out genuine repairs. The city insists the renovations are impressive for safety and that delays have kept residents from returning. Some tenants rejected the option of moving to regional care homes, citing costs of up to 86% of their pension, compared with 10 to 15% for municipal rent, as well as the distance from their neighborhood.
The legal debate is whether the city can require all residents to leave for renovations without clear technical necessity. The ruling indicates that stronger evidence is needed to justify such a move. The dispute reflects wider tensions in Spain over housing rights, particularly for vulnerable groups. Similar disputes have arisen elsewhere, including after Catalonia introduced measures to limit speculative property purchases in high-demand areas, a move detailed in this recent report on Catalonia's housing policy.
Ibáñez remains in his apartment and says he would consider leaving only if the city guarantees his rights and rental terms in writing. The outcome of a possible appeal could set a precedent for how Spanish municipalities balance urgent building works with the rights of long-term tenants, especially older residents. The case also shows the difficulty of maintaining aging public housing without imposing the legal and social costs of displacement on vulnerable residents. As Spain's population ages and demand for affordable senior housing grows, such conflicts may become more common in urban centers like Madrid.
A separate Madrid housing case reported in October 2026 illustrates the wider debate over public property and vulnerability, though it involved different circumstances. Raquel Catalá, a judge at Madrid's Administrative Litigation Court No. 29, declined to order the recovery of a property owned by the regional government's Social Housing Agency in Leganés, where a family with five children had no alternative home. In her reasoning, she invoked the Civil Code principle that legal rules should be interpreted in light of “the social reality of the present time” and referred to the severe housing crisis. The decision was not final and could be appealed within 15 days. It concerned an occupancy dispute, not temporary relocation for municipal renovation, and does not determine the legal issues in Ibáñez's case.
For now, Ibáñez remains in his apartment and says he would consider leaving only if the city guarantees his rights and rental terms in writing. The outcome of the city's potential appeal could set a precedent for how Spanish municipalities balance urgent building works with the rights of long-term tenants, particularly the elderly. The case also highlights the difficulty local governments face in maintaining aging public housing while protecting vulnerable residents from displacement. As Spain's population ages and demand for affordable senior housing grows, such conflicts may become increasingly common in urban centers like Madrid.
