The objective of this study is to nuance practical problems that may arise in the application of the provisions of the Civil Code in matters of the right of preference to tenancy. In the absence of some exhaustive legal norms (Article 1828 of the Civil Code making reference to the provisions of the right of preemption that must be properly applied), we consider that it is inevitable that in the hypothesis of a litigation there are no divergent interpretations which have as source unclear rules that govern this matter.
We have focused, primarily, on identifying the compatibility of the provisions of the preemption right with that of the right of preference, being essential the correct interpretation of the phrase „properly”. We later pointed out the holders of this right and the conditions that must be met in order for this to may be exercised. More specifically, we have leaned on the analysis of a condition whose limits are not clearly laid down by the law: what does it mean the obligativity for the tenant to perform the obligations on the basis of the previous rental and whether the notion of non-performance also includes the delay in performing the obligations.
In addition, we have analyzed the nature and moment from which the exercise of the right begins to run, considering that particular issues are raised by the notification which the lessor is obliged to send to the lessee in view of exercising the right of preference, since the moment of communication thereof is also the one from which the term of exercise of the right begins to run. We have identified two judgments expressing two fundamentally different views referring to what the content of the notification must be, analyzing the arguments of both courts and exposing our own point of view.
Last but not least, in terms of the differences between the contract of sale and the one of tenancy, our approach has continued by pointing out how to exercise the right of preference, respectively of the amount of rent that must be recorded and the moment when the recording must be made – which, from our point of view, differs from those in the matter of preemption. We have concluded with the moment when the new rental agreement was signed, along with the effects it produces.
We hope that this study will prove useful to be to practitioners in particular, as we have tried to answer questions and provide explanations where the legislation and doctrine have not done it so far, although the questions have already arisen in practice, imperiously requiring an answer.
