Spain's Supreme Court annuls national short-let register

Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 established common rules to enable public authorities in EU member states to access reliable information on short-term rentals offered on digital platforms.

As an EU regulation and not a directive, it applied directly in all member states from the date of its entry into force, without the need for each country to adopt domestic legislation for its transposition or implementation.

The regulation did not require member states to establish a registration system for short-term rental services, nor did it stipulate that any such register must be national. It merely set out the rules that registers would need to comply with if member states decide to establish them.

The position was clear: registration was an option, not an obligation. When a register is created, it could be at national, regional or local level, in accordance with the internal distribution of powers among the territorial authorities of each member state – an area in which the regulation does not intervene. The only firm condition was that a single unit could not be subject to more than one registration procedure at the same time.

The Spanish government, in adopting Royal Decree 1312/2024 of 23 December, opted to create a state-level register. Both the preamble and the explanatory memorandum to the decree stated that the legislation was necessary to comply with an obligation arising from the regulation, in respect of which the government had no discretion. The Council of State called for this statement to be corrected as it was erroneous: the regulation was already directly applicable and did not require the creation of any register.

The royal decree set out two mechanisms. The first was a single register, administered at the Land Registry or the Register of Movable Property. Any owner wishing to advertise a property on platforms such as Vrbo and other leading online marketplaces had to first obtain a unique rental registration number (NRUA). Without one, the listing could not be published; if the NRUA was suspended or withdrawn, the platform had to remove it within 48 hours. The second was the single digital entry point for rentals, a digital gateway run by the Ministry of Housing to facilitate the exchange of information between platforms and public authorities.

In practice, any property owner wishing to advertise a short-term let whether for tourism, seasonal work, study or any other purpose was required to obtain an NRUA. Without this number, platforms such as Airbnb or Vrbo could not publish the listing, and if the NRUA was suspended or withdrawn, the platform had to remove it within 48 hours. These operational provisions came into force on 1 July 2025.

The problem was twofold. The government lacked the authority to impose this registration. And the decree contradicted the very regulation with which it claimed to comply. The regulation clearly states that a single property cannot be subject to more than one registration procedure. However, the autonomous communities had already had their own tourist registers for years, which created a duplication of registration directly prohibited by the European regulation that the decree sought to implement.

Since coming into force, the single register has been plagued by refusals, suspensions, withdrawn listings and conflicts with the regional registers. The encroachment on powers was challenged by 14 autonomous communities, and the Canary Islands Holiday Rental Association even brought the matter before the European Commission, which warned Spain of the breach and urged it to eliminate the dual registration system.

Warning unheeded

Before approving the regulation, the government consulted the Council of State. The result was a unanimous ruling, 1926/2024, dated 18 December 2024, which recommended that the text be thoroughly revised, raising three clear objections. First, the government had no authority to create such a register. In the council’s own words, it was in substance an administrative register "however much it may have been disguised as a procedure within the Land Registry". Second, a regulatory provision cannot impose requirements on owners and platforms regarding access to the activity without the backing of a statutory provision. Third, allowing the same property to have two registration numbers, one national and another regional, directly contradicted the regulation.

The Council of State proposed, as an alternative, a central administrative register to coordinate information from the regional registers without replacing them. The government, however, did not follow this recommendation and approved the royal decree as it stood.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court holds that the government may establish mechanisms for coordination, interoperability and the transmission of information relating to the rental market, but it may not impose a single national registration procedure that replaces or overlaps with existing regional procedures in matters primarily linked to housing and tourism. This distinction between coordinating and replacing is the central tenet of the judgment.

Judgment 620/2026 (STS 2148/2026) of 19 May 2026 partially upheld the appeal brought by the Valencian regional government and concluded that the government lacks the competence to impose a single state-level registration procedure linked to the Land Registry or the Register of Movable Property as a requirement for offering short-term accommodation on online platforms.

The State Legal Service and the Association of Registrars had argued that the single register did not duplicate the regional registers, but rather centralised and simplified them. The Supreme Court did not accept this.

Four grounds of jurisdiction

The Supreme Court examined the four grounds of jurisdiction invoked by the government and dismissed them one by one.

• Public registers (article 149.1.8 of the Spanish Constitution). The register created did not record contracts or encumbrances on immovable property. It was, in fact, a requirement for access to an economic activity, a matter falling within the remit of the autonomous communities in the fields of housing and tourism.
• Economic planning (article 149(1)(13)). The government may establish guidelines and promote the exchange of information, but it may not comprehensively regulate the registration procedure from start to finish. Furthermore, the regulation was not justified by the need to cross-check information; for example, to verify prohibitions agreed by owners’ associations. Some regional regulations already provide for equivalent mechanisms.
• Equality (article 149.1.1). This provision does not permit the government to intervene in any matter on a horizontal basis. The royal decree did not lay down basic conditions, but rather provided for an exhaustive regulation of the procedure, which exceeds the scope of this provision.
• State statistics (Article 149.1.31). This provision does permit the continued transmission of data to the National Statistics Institute (INE), to regional statistical institutes and to Eurostat, but it does not authorise the creation of the register, which did not pursue a purely statistical purpose.

What remains in force?

The Supreme Court's ruling does not repeal the royal decree in its entirety. The single digital entry point for rentals is considered a valid coordination tool because it does not replace regional procedures, but enables the coordination of information and ensures the interoperability of data between administrations, platforms and statistical bodies.

Three elements remain fully in force. The single digital entry point for rental survives as an instrument for coordination and interoperability between administrations, platforms and statistical bodies. The obligations for online platforms to transmit data via the single digital entry point for rentals are also preserved. So too is the monthly submission of statistical data to the INE, the regional statistical institutes and Eurostat, including the possibility for the INE to extend agreements with the Land Registry and the Register of Movable Property.

Practical implications

The abolition of the state register does not mean that the short-term rental market is left unregulated. There are five issues that landlords and platforms will need to bear in mind.

• Regional licences remain mandatory. Tourist registrations, licences and statutory declarations in each autonomous community remain fully in force. Nothing changes in this regard.
• The state registration number is no longer required. The obligation to obtain an NRUA through the Land Registry or the Register of Movable Property is no longer in force.
• Platform reporting continues. The abolition of the single register does not remove the framework for transparency and data exchange via the single digital entry point for rentals. Platforms must continue to fulfil their obligations regarding data transmission and cooperation with the authorities.
• Claims for financial liability are possible. Property owners whose listings were removed for not having an NRUA may have grounds to claim against the state for financial liability, as well as for loss of earnings arising from this situation.
• New regulations are expected. The government will need to approve a new regulatory framework that respects the division of powers, coordinating regional registers without duplicating them, as the Council of State previously proposed.

Osborne Clarke comment 

The ruling makes it clear that effective regulation does not necessarily require centralised intervention. The Council of State had already indicated the appropriate course of action in its opinion: to establish a system of coordination based on the existing regional registers, without replacing them.

The government did not heed that recommendation, and the result has been almost two years of legal uncertainty, conflicts over jurisdiction and actual harm to owners and operators.

The ruling does not create a regulatory vacuum:  it restores regulatory authority to the autonomous communities. It does require the government, however, to draw up new regulations. The legislation that is approved in its place will be a key indicator of whether the shortcomings identified have been effectively rectified. The debate on its form is already underway.

For a detailed analysis of the implications of this judgment or to discuss possible avenues for redress, please do not hesitate to contact the authors of this article or your usual point of contact at Osborne Clarke.