Rainbow
have had a similar problem with this ruling for glass curtains on our community I have reasearched this problem on the the internet it is all governed by the Horizontal property law by right you have to have at least 60% of your community owners approve the installation done at AGM.
But I have found section of advise from a solicitor with regard to this problem I have cut and pasted to this thread for your reading it relates to the Spanish Supreme Court agreeing in one instance through the virtue of Tacit consent In short if other people have already installed then by Tacit consent the community cannot stop you from installing.
But I would be wary if you did not get consent first from the Town Hall as they could make you remove if you do not get approval.
This HPL is a minefield so have a good read and if you feel to install seek professional advice first and ask them about Tacit Consent
This is a minefield depending on what community you are on, every time a request is made for improvements we are told not allowed by Horizontal Property Law (HPL). Having looked into this further and dissected the HPL I have come across a website with a lawyers version and gives some examples of permission being granted or nor granted as restricted by HPL.
This website gives cases of rulings made by the Spanish Supreme Court with regards to The HPL.
As for the question set by rainbow there is section with regard to Tacit consent ie in laymans terms if an improvement has already been made without approval from the community at any AGM then by Tacit consent
you should be able to carry out the works you require to your property without approval from community i.e. 3/5ths or 60% of eligible voters from community as detailed in HPL
Below is the section taken from section 7 of the HPL which may help in your case rainbow
Text copied from :
http://www.fljordan.com/index-2.html The rule of tacit consent is widely applied by the Supreme Court, it means a form of consent which is not expressly granted , but rather inferred from actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by silence or inaction).
This problem often stems from inadvertence: a lack of familiarity with the rules leading to consent having been given erroneously in the past; a failure to enforce past transgressions or a president having given approval on a matter falling outside his sphere of responsibility. Much litigation is caused not necessarily because of any malignant intention to thwart the will of the OC, but rather because of a sense of unfairness that a privilege that has been allowed to other owner in the past is being unfairly withheld from the litigant commonholder.
The term is most commonly encountered in the alteration of common and private parts. Tacit consent also means that if other owners in the same commonhold have glazed their terraces or balconies previously with tacit or express consent, the OC may not then prevent new owners to carry out such works .
Problems arise when the previous glazing and the planned one do not possess the same features; in that case the tacit consent’s rule breaks up.CA ruling in Madrid 29-06-2004, 27-06-2003 and 27-12-2004