19 May 2013 11:17:

 The opening of those windows as a modification to the outside walls of the building does require unanimous vote.

The cost of structural damage to the internal pillars and waste water pipes and the maintenance thereof must be borne by the Community (unless such damage was caused by the Almacen owner's renovation works), because those are commonly owned.  The issue here is proving that the damage was the responsibility of the Almacen owner or not and if there is discrepancy it is possible that a professional evaluation by an arquitect to determine where the responsibiity lies becomes necessary, adding to the cost of repairs.

Thread: APAERTMENT BLOCK STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE

--------------------------------------

19 May 2013 10:45:

 Johnx is correct in stating that the change in the way a common area is used requires unanimous vote.  This means that no owner votes against the use change, not that ALL owners need to vote in favour.

 The way this works in practice is that all owners present or represented at the meeting must vote in favour of the proposal and the owners not present or represented at the meeting must not communicate that they are against the proposal within 30 days from the date they received the Minutes of the AGM or EGM.  After the 30 days, those owners that have not communicated that they are against the resolution will be deemed to have voted in favour of such resolution.

However, the OP is not very clear as to the Almacen because it seems from his first line that the Almacen is not a common area but rather the property of an owner and then further on states that a vote for the conversion was taken at a meeting.  If the Almacen is not a common area, but rather the property of an owner, then the rule of authorization by the Community by unanimous vote as a change in use of a common area is not applicable and other rules apply (possibly requiring only majority or 3/5 in favour).  The OP needs to clarify what the situation really is.  

 

Thread: APAERTMENT BLOCK STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE

--------------------------------------

18 May 2013 10:44:

 Hi, Ads

The Spanish Authorities are more than aware of the fact that few, if any, Courts in Spain is able to work within the time limits provided for in the legislation and that the delays to get issues resolved is increasing exponentially recent years.  The Bar Associations and other groups dealing with the justice systems have been bringing this to the attention of the Ministry of Justice for years.

Unfortunately, as many things today, this problem can only be started to be resolved by funding the justice system with substantial moneys.  There is an immense shortage of judges and resources in Courts,  There is barely no technology assisting in the organization and development of legal processes.  Most judges have to issue an average of 4 or 5 rulings each day, in addition to hearing, analyzing and motivating these decisions and this is just impossible to deal with with the resources available.  Although this situation is somewhat endemic and has been developing for many many years, the economic crisis and the increase in litigation has extended waiting times to an unbearable situation.  Believe me, the Spanish authorities are aware of this.

The Ministry of Justice has announced that a plan is currently being developed and implemented to ease (not to resolve) the backlog of cases.  For example, many of the non-contentious proceedings Judges have to deal with (for example marriages, divorces by mutual agreement, inheritance estates where all parties agree, among others) are in the process of being transferred to Notaries and Property Registrars who have seen their workload diminish with the crisis as opposed to that of Judges.  Plaintiffs will now have to make payment of Court costs up-front and these costs have been seriously increased this year (although the legal profession is opposing this because in a way it is a means of making justice much more expensive and less available to the poor).  The position of the legal profession is understandable but it is also true that a very substantial investment of funds into the system is required to only start dealing with the issues.

It seems to me from some of your posts that you believe that nothing is being done to remedy the situation and that Bar Associations are resigned to accept the current state of affairs.  This is far from the truth but in the present economic climate where the Goverment have had to make and still has to make substantial costs to public spending, it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to invest the amount of funds required to resolve this mess.

I am confident that eventually things will start to improve but I am not sure when this improvement will become noticeable enough to people waiting for justice.  So a few years of waiting and, therefore, of injustice are still ahead.  The backlog of cases is huge and, obviously, not only regarding property issues but regarding proceedings of all kinds brought before the Courts.

I am sorry to have to recognize it as it is but I wanted to let you know that you do not need to appeal to the legal professionals to bring the situation to the attention of the authorities.  They are doing what they can to assist clients with this, which is not very much in the current circumstances.

 

Thread: Court case against La Caixa / Trampolin Hills

--------------------------------------

17 May 2013 11:28:

 OK, Roberto, although I agree with you that the OP is no longer following the thread.

The tax rates and tax allowances are completely different for resident and non-resident taxpayers.  The tax base is also different.  The rates and allowance vary from year to year.  They are available in the website of the AEAT (Agencia Estatal de Administracion Tributaria), the Spanish Tax Revenue service.

One can only choose to be a resident or non-resident taxpayer by altering the circumstances, mainly changing the length of time one stays in Spain in each calendar year.  It has nothing to do with having a "residencia or being registered in the EU Residents Registry". These latter issues are administrative issues and not tax relevant except to say that if one has residencia or is registered in the EU Registry the tax authorities will assume one is also tax resident.

This assumption can be overcome, possibly with some difficulty, if one is able to prove that either due to the length of time of one's stay in Spain or by application of the tie breaker clause in an applicable Tax Treaty with the other country, one is not a tax resident of Spain.  This would not be an easy task as under the tax rules, one is taxed as a resident if one stays more than 183 days in a calendar year or has the intention of staying in this country more than that period of time.  Negating the intention when one is registered or has a residencia is very difficult although at least in pure theory, not impossible.

 

Thread: resident or non resident tax

--------------------------------------

17 May 2013 10:04:

 66d35 said:  "The tax was only reinstated for two years as an "emergency measure".

This is true but recently the Government announced that although the initital intention was for the tax to be reinstated for only two years (2012 and 2013), the economic situation has made it necessary to add another two years (2014 and 2015).  Let's just hope it doesn't get extended any further, but I am not betting on it.  The same goes for the increased Personal Income Tax rates.

Thread: resident or non resident tax

--------------------------------------