The Council of State determined that articles 3rd of Decree 2590/2009 and article 1st of Decree 4933/2009 were legally issued and that condominium regulations should authorize real estate properties to be used for tourism purposes.

By means of a nullity action, the plaintiff argued that Congress was the only authorized to regulate the provision of touristic services. Therefore, he claimed that articles issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, and the Ministry of Housing, City and Territory exceeded the jurisdiction provided by the law and that they limited the exercise of the right to private property.

By the contrary, the Council of State concluded that the legislator did provided the National Government the faculty to rule and set the requirements for rendering touristic services within the national territory since the laws regulating these matters does not refer to this specific point. 

Thus, in accordance with the Council of State ruling, those regulations —which require an express authorization from the Condominium regimes for the real estate properties to be used for tourism purposes— were issued according to the law and that there is not any reason to consider they as null or illegal.