When the rented property is considered the family home of the Tenants, article 12, no. 1 of the New Urban Lease Regime (NRAU) obliges the Landlord to send the notices relating to the contract to each of the spouses individually, namely in the case of a rent increase or an opposition to the renewal of the contract. Failure to notify one of the spouses would render the act ineffective.
This provision raised doubts about its application to unmarried partners.
On January 21st, the Constitutional Court was called upon to rule on this matter and ruled that there is no unconstitutionality in the interpretation that the landlord’s notice of opposition to the renewal of the lease only has to be addressed to the tenant and not to their unmarried partner, provided that they are not a party to the contract.
In support of this view, the Court held that marriage and unmarried partnership are not entirely comparable. Marriage is a stable contract, subject to public registration, which is not the case with an unmarried partnership. It should be noted that an unmarried partnership does not constitute a civil status and therefore does not appear as such in the indication of the parties’ personal data in the rental contract.
It would be very difficult for the landlord to have the necessary information to notify the tenant’s unmarried partner. To take the opposite view of the Court would imply an increased requirement to discover the tenant’s unmarried partner, since the mention of the unmarried partnership must be included in the rental agreement and could even lead to a certain direct “intrusion” by the landlord into the private and family life of his tenant.
The court therefore concluded that interpreting the law in this way does not violate the principle of equality or the principle of legal certainty.
This understanding was not peaceful and was subject of an unsuccessful vote by Judge Rui Guerra da Fonseca, who understood that the rule in question is aimed at protecting the family home and that if the tenant informs the landlord that they are living in an unmarried partnership and provides the details of the unmarried partner, then there is no reason why the communication should not be sent to both of them.
This decision by the Constitutional Court is a clarifying one for landlords who, in certain cases, may not have information about whether their tenants are living with someone in a civil partnership.
