INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW violation of the provisions of Article 1422.2.c), which prohibits the condominium owners from using fractions other than the use for which they are intended. To rule this way, the Supreme Court refer to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court15, that stands for the need to respect the use intended for the fractions in the constitutive title, for reasons of proximity and communion and for reasons of public order, since it aims to ensure the protection of: “public and collective interests, relating to conditions of salubrity, aesthetics and safety of buildings, as well as aesthetic, urban planning and environmental conditions, which are even more pressing in large urban centres, where horizontal property buildings proliferate; this, in addition to the private interests relating to relations between condominium members, derived from the special nature of horizontal property”. The decision considers that the defence of these interests requires the respect of the use stated in the title, giving examples of other jurisprudential decisions, such as that of the Supreme Court of Justice of 200216, which states that: “as it is a residential property in which only one fraction is used as a “shop”, it must be admitted that the intention was to guarantee the tranquillity of those living in the property and that, for this reason, it is important to give this notion a restrictive meaning Or the Coimbra Court of Appeal of 199417, to the effect that: “Fractions which in the title deed of the horizontal property are intended for dwelling purposes cannot be used for the activity of beautician or for a medical practice”. Based on these arguments, the decision concludes that: “As the autonomous fraction, according to the constitutive title, is destined to habitation, it cannot be given another destination (furnished accommodation for tourists) being to that effect irrelevant the licensing of the premises for the aforementioned commercial activity by those entities”. 15 Judgement 44/99, of 19.01.1999 – proc.º n.º 682/97, in www.tribunalconstitucional.pt 16 http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/49d36d347e79245780256bd0004a073 5?OpenDocument 17 Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, 423, page 614.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==