A dog had been the reason for an eviction endorsed by the Superior Courtbut the Constitutional Court (TC) he has decided that he needs to be motivated much better why the animal is a problem. theHigh Court upheld the appeal of a tenant who had lost her apartment for having a pet, even though the rental contract expressly forbade it. The story had begun when the owner claimed the termination of the contract because the woman had breach of the clause that prevented having animals without authorization. The Batllia initially dismissed the lawsuit, but the civil room of the Superior Court he ruled in favor of the owner, terminated the contract and agreed to the eviction of the tenant. The woman appealed to the constitutional and defended that the dog had not caused a nuisance or caused damage to the home. The CT has given him the right in an essential point: the decision of the superior she had not been motivated enough. According to the magistrates, he had departed from his own jurisprudence without sufficiently explaining why he was changing his mind.
The constitutional appreciates a “logical fracture” in the reasoning and cancels the March sentence. Now, the Civil Hall will have to return to pronounce on the case with sufficient motivation. The paradox was that the tenant had already voluntarily left the flat, but the constitutional has considered that the question still had constitutional interest.
