• It opens a scenario of legal uncertainty regarding the effects of the extensions granted while the rule was in force.

The Congress of Deputies has rejected the validation of Royal Decree-Law 8/2026, a regulation that had entered into force immediately after its publication and which introduced, among other measures, the possibility of requesting extraordinary extensions in certain lease contracts.

Failure to obtain parliamentary approval implies the repeal of the regulation, although this does not automatically imply the nullity of the legal situations generated during the time the Royal Decree-Law was in force.

Generally speaking, lease extensions accepted by landlords prior to the repeal would remain valid and should be honored, having occurred under a rule that was fully in force at the time. The fall of the text would therefore have derogatory effects towards the future, but would not automatically invalidate the agreements reached during its application.

“From a legal point of view, the repeal of the Royal Decree-Law should not affect the situations consolidated during its validity. If the owner accepted the extension while the regulation was in force, it is reasonable to understand that this extension retains its full effects”, explains Íñigo Sánchez del Campo, partner at Thomás de Carranza Abogados.

However, the lack of doctrinal unanimity on the scope of these extensions opens up different interpretative criteria regarding their real effects and anticipates possible conflicts between lessors and lessees.

Among the main interpretations that are beginning to emerge are the following:

• That only extensions formalized during the exact period of validity of the Royal Decree-Law are valid.
• That the effectiveness of the extraordinary extension be limited exclusively to the time during which the rule remained in force.
• That the validity of the measure depends on the lessee having made an express request, for example, by means of a burofax, with respect to contracts that expire within the period of application of the RDL.

Thomás de Carranza Abogados considers that this situation will foreseeably give rise to new litigation related to lease contracts, especially in those cases in which there is a discrepancy regarding the scope or duration of the extensions requested under the Royal Decree-Law.

“Beyond the political outcome of the vote, these types of scenarios end up directly affecting confidence in the rental market. Landlords and tenants need regulatory stability and clear criteria to be able to make decisions with certainty,” concludes the firm’s partner.

As has already occurred in previous housing reforms, it will foreseeably be the interpretation of the courts that will end up delimiting the definitive scope of the situations generated during the validity of a subsequently repealed regulation.