International Journal of Tourism, Travel and Hospitality Law flat owners", which opens the field to arbitrary decisions or decisions driven by unclear and illegitimate interests of the flat owners attending the meetings. The powers the Law entitles the Mayor are all but clear. The decision to oppose the practice of local accommodation in the flat in question belongs to the assembly of condominium, which "informs" the Mayor of the resolution. However, it is the Mayor who decides on the "termination request". The condominium assembly does not make a request to the Mayor but informs him of its decision. The role of the Mayor seems to stamp the decision of the owners' meeting. The practical effectiveness of the legal right to a prior hearing of the counterparty in the determined cancellation of the local accommodation is, of course, null and void. The termination by the Mayor, following the decision of the condominium assembly, means that the property in question may not be operated as local accommodation, "independently of the respective entity, for a period fixed in the decision, up to a maximum of one year". It should be noted that one thing is a flat or flats in a building in horizontal property and another thing is "the property". The property is the building, but not each one of the parts corresponding to each apartment. Each one of the flats, from a legal point of view, a component part of the property. Furthermore, the norm enunciation states that the prohibition of exploration of local accommodation activity applies "independently of the respective entity". This can be interpreted as meaning that, during the period of prohibition, the exclusion applies to the entire building (the property) and to all owners (regardless of the respective entity). However, the decision of the owners' meeting refers to one or more units where the events have occurred and not to the entire property. The application of the sanction of ceasing the activity of the local accommodation for a maximum period of one year raises another question: can the owners' meeting at the end of the period of prohibition reiterate the decision to oppose to the practice of local accommodation activity in the same flat and/or by the same owner, adding further periods of prohibition to the initial period, specifically on the grounds that the operation of the local accommodation activity in itself is a source or may be a source (prevention of risks) of disturbance of the normal use of the building, or of nuisance or disturbance to the rest of the owners of the flat? From the point of view of effective judicial protection other doubts remain: which jurisdiction protects the rights of the various parties involved: the civil jurisdiction, who rules conflicts between owners and between the board of the condominium and the owners, or the administrative jurisdiction, who rules conflicts between individuals and municipalities, represented by the Mayor?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==