Citizens across Spain filed over 1,400 lawsuits in Spain in 2025 over squatting.
According to the latest figures from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), 322 new cases were registered in the first quarter – a 44.5% year-on-year drop and the lowest in the body’s historical series dating back to 2018. This brings the total number of lawsuits in the first nine months of the year to 1,401.
Andalusia has overtaken Catalonia as the autonomous community with the most lawsuits, registering 282 cases compared with Catalonia’s 266.
The remaining territories have recorded fewer than 200 cases in the first three quarters of the year, with the Valencian Community (158) and Madrid (132) the next most affected.
Among the archipelagos, the Canary Islands have 91 claims and the Balearics 82, alongside Castilla-La Mancha (82), Murcia (60) and Castile and León (52).
All other autonomous communities have fewer than 50 cases from January to September, with Cantabria and Navarre reporting fewer than ten legal proceedings each.
However, the rankings shift when considering lawsuits per 100,000 inhabitants. In Q3, the worst-affected regions are the Balearic Islands (1.5), Asturias (1.3) and the Canary Islands (1.1), followed by Murcia (0.8).
Next are Andalusia, Castile and León, Catalonia, and the Valencian Community, all with 0.7 cases per 100,000 inhabitants over the summer. Madrid records 0.5, while Cantabria (0.3), Aragon (0.1) and Navarre (0) occupy the lowest positions.
Although Andalusia leads in new proceedings this quarter, Barcelona remains the province with the most lawsuits, adding 38 cases between July and September, according to CGPJ data.
Following Barcelona, the provinces with the most new cases are Madrid (33), Valencia (23), the Balearic Islands (18), Cádiz (17), Huelva (13), Asturias (13), Santa Cruz de Tenerife (13), Murcia (12), Las Palmas (11), Pontevedra (11) and Seville (10). All other provinces recorded fewer than ten new filings in Q3.
The CGPJ notes that its statistics cover “procedures processed by the Courts of First Instance, which allow, in cases of housing occupation, natural persons who are owners or legitimate possessors, non-profit entities with the right to possess and public bodies owning or legitimately possessing social housing, to request the immediate recovery of full possession of a dwelling or part of it, provided it has been taken without their consent.”
From the duty to negotiate to unreported cases
The sharp drop in squatting lawsuits over the past two quarters coincides with the entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025 on 3 April, which introduces measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service. The law requires owners of squatted properties to negotiate and attempt to reach an agreement before filing a lawsuit against squatters.
Owners must “prove that prior negotiation has been attempted and comply with the procedural requirement; said negotiation or the attempt thereof must be documented.”
The law further specifies that if “30 calendar days have elapsed from the date of receipt of the initial request for negotiation by the other party, and the first meeting or contact aimed at reaching an agreement has not taken place, or a written response has not been received, it will be understood that the process has ended without an agreement,” after which legal action may proceed.
Beyond the obligation to negotiate with squatters before filing a lawsuit, many cases go unreported to the security forces or the courts.
Legal experts consulted by idealista/news note that an increasing number of property owners are turning to alternative methods to regain possession quickly, either through negotiation and paying squatters or by hiring specialist eviction companies. This is particularly common in cases of deliberate squatting, which includes tenants who have intentionally stopped paying rent and are therefore excluded from official complaint statistics.
The average time it takes for a court to uphold an eviction order has reached an all-time high, taking almost 24 months in Spain, including the initial hearing and any appeals to the Provincial Courts. For this reason, many owners resort to alternative measures to recover their properties more swiftly.
