Two legal opinions commissioned by the Association of Builders and Promoters of Navarra (ACP) argue that the recent modification of the law on the right to Housing in Navarra, approved by the regional Parliament on June 25, presents "various reasons for unconstitutionality by applying, retroactively, an indefinite regime to protected housing promotions for rent carried out under conditions and deadlines previously established, under which such housing would be disqualified upon reaching a certain date from its definitive qualification."
As detailed by ACP in a press release, the reports have been prepared by the professor of Administrative Law at the Public University of Navarra (UPNA), Martín María Razquin Lizarraga, and by the former chief lawyer of the Parliament of Navarra and former lawyer of the Constitutional Court, Manuel Pulido Quecedo.
Both jurists conclude that the reform affects already consolidated rights and violates the Constitution by incurring, among other aspects, in processing defects, in an invasion of state competence in housing matters, and in the breach of several constitutional principles such as legal certainty, non-retroactivity, legitimate expectation, equality, or property rights.
According to their conclusions, the approved modification introduces full retroactivity, prohibited by the Constitution, by altering legal situations whose effects were already integrated into the assets of the promoting companies.
Beyond the possible reasons for unconstitutionality, ACP Navarra also criticizes the path chosen to advance the reform, processed through the urgent procedure and in a single reading, when "it could have been addressed through a procedure that allowed for a broader analysis, the preparation of reports, and the participation of the various affected agents."
The legislative initiative initially came from PSN, EH Bildu, and Contigo-Zurekin and was finally approved with the votes of these three parties and Geroa Bai. The modification extends indefinite protection to protected housing intended for rental or affordable rental that, according to the applicable regulations at the time of its promotion, lost its protection regime after a few years from its definitive qualification, also preventing its sale, and does so with retroactive effects.
ACP has emphasized that "the initiative had an especially brief processing." "The bill was presented on June 11 and was approved by the plenary ten days later. The single reading meant that the initiative went directly to the plenary without the ordinary processing in the working group and commission," the association has indicated.
In its statement, the business organization recalls that "one of the main arguments used by the parliamentary groups proposing the urgent modification was the existence of 108 protected homes that were going to lose their qualification during the summer of 2026." "However, the information provided by the Department of Housing, through a query to the Transparency Portal, confirms that these homes are owned by public entities: 38 homes in Burlada whose owner is the City Council of Burlada, and 70 homes in Pamplona owned by Nasuvinsa," it has pointed out.
For ACP Navarra, this data demonstrates that "the urgency invoked in relation to those 108 homes was not such and, therefore, the approved modification lacked justification, so it should not have been processed nor, much less, approved." "The end of their protection period did not imply by itself either their immediate sale to a private operator or the automatic exit of their tenants, and the circumstance that they were publicly owned homes substantially changed the scenario presented to justify an urgent legislative reform," it has defended.
The association has stressed that "the 108 homes that were repeatedly used to justify the need to approve the reform immediately were not in the hands of an investment fund, nor of a private owner willing to sell them, but in the assets of public entities." "The available information shows that the promoters are the City Council of Burlada and Nasuvinsa. Therefore, we believe that there was room to study a modification of this importance with more time, more information, and a dialogue with the sector that unfortunately has not existed," they have added from ACP.
In the same line, ACP Navarra considers that the debate "should not have been posed as a choice between maintaining the legislation unchanged or approving the modification in just a few days." "There was also the possibility of reviewing the model with prior involvement of the administrations, parliamentary groups, promoters of protected housing, entities linked to protected rental, and the rest of the affected parties," the organization pointed out.
The association understands that a reform with effects on promotions qualified under previous regulation, and with significant repercussions for both tenants and the entities and companies that promoted those protected housing projects, "would have deserved a process of dialogue, which did not exist." "That Parliament considered it necessary to change the model does not mean that this change has to be made without listening to those affected by it. There was time to seek a solution that protected tenants, preserved the objectives of public housing policy, and, at the same time, offered security and predictability to all parties," the association has insisted.
Finally, ACP Navarra has emphasized that, as it conveyed to all parliamentary groups, "the modification has not solved the issue of those homes that, prior to its approval, had already lost their protected qualification, and has only served to expel private initiative which, since the law came into force, has been forced to desist from the construction of more than 300 homes that had been administratively qualified for protected rental, thus further worsening the situation of supply shortage in the market."