ISSN 2184-8793 ISSNe 2975-9056 "besides the specifications set forth in the previous paragraph, the constitutive title may also contain, namely: a) Mention of the purpose for which each fraction or common part is destined". To consider that, as the exploitation of the local accommodation activity is a commercial activity, it cannot be exercised in a fraction that, according to the constitutive title, is solely intended for dwelling purposes, under penalty of 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: 15 Judgement 44/99, of 19.01.1999 - procº nº 682/97, in www.tribunalconstitucional.pt 16http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/49d36d347e79245780256bd0004a0735?OpenD ocument 17 Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, 423, page 614.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==