As a continuation of previous post:
Seems to me that these Supreme Court Decissions, as a matter of fact, make those 57/68 rights weaker.
Again, I can understand that there are different levels of breaches and that because of that different level of measures/ consequences need to arise but, from that to restrict lack of First Occupation License as breach of contract and cancellation producer, to just those two possibilities, seems to me too restrictive.
It might be that the Supreme Court is thinking of those cases where whole construction is finished and end of works certificate is issued but there is not First Occupation License, then, in these cases, cancellation is possible just under those two frames. If this is the case, I guess a further explanation is necessary.
I keep wondering for those cases where developer has disappeared or is non solvent to finish the development. There are some of these that do not even go to bankruptcy proceedings and developments end up being repossessed by Banks. Where buyers rights go then?
In cases of bankruptcy, if the agreement of creditors is signed, buyers need to wait to the end of the Bankruptcy procedure, seeing their effective, inalienable rights related to Law 57/68 also highly disregarded. This is also my opinion.
Back in 2006 when we started studying on lack of First Occupation License and completion, academic authorities of Consumers Law of CESCO ( University of Castilla-La Mancha, Centro de Estudios de Consumo) stated:
1.- The seller who signs the public deeds of purchase without FOL ( First Occupation License) is in breach of contract even if the house has been physically handed over, because the ownership rights that he is trasmitting are not valid for the use of the house till the FOL is granted.
2.- The buyer can be opossed to the signing of the deeds till the FOL is granted if the completion date was fixed for anytime after the end of the work, and the seller cannot cancel the contract due to this negative of the buyer until he fulfills his contractual obligations ( by obtaining the FOL).
3.- The buyer can cancel the contract ( even after the signing of the deeds), with full devolution of amounts, interests and compensation of damages if after the completion date, either the deeds having been signed or not, the building does not have the FOL.
4.- If the buyer decides not to cancel the contract, he must not occupy the house, even when having being formally handed over, because that would involve an administative infringement and because he can be deprived of its use by the competent Administration.
There is much to work on in relation to Law 57/68.... it is not dificult. Just a bit of political will is necessary.
Vejer , Cadiz, Southwestern Spain, Costa de la Luz, by Jose Manuel González, at facebook.com