The long and complex legal battle over the sale of timeshare rights in southern Gran Canaria has entered a crucial phase. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued an order admitting the appeal filed by Anfi Sales SL and Anfi Resorts SL. The timeshare giant seeks to overturn a ruling by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, which, in February 2024, declared a 2013 contract null and void, based on the lack of clarity regarding the property's purpose.
The core of the legal controversy lies in the concept of the "floating" suite. The Provincial Court had ruled in favor of an individual, Luis Francisco, considering that the contract—which defined the object simply as a one-bedroom room for four occupants without specifying a unit number or a particular week—was void due to its lack of clarity. According to the Canary Islands court, this "regular reservation" model prevented the consumer from knowing which specific property was the object of their reservation, an interpretation that Anfi considers erroneous and contrary to current regulations.
In its appeal, Anfi's legal representatives argue that the appealed judgment infringes Law 4/2012, specifically its Sole Transitional Provision. The company contends that there is a contradiction with established case law regarding the application of this law to contracts signed after its entry into force, but relating to timeshare arrangements established much earlier, under the former Law 42/1998. Anfi seeks clarification from the Supreme Court as to whether the "indeterminacy" of the object is sufficient grounds for annulment in these specific cases.
The Supreme Court's acceptance of the appeal stems from the need to refine, clarify, or confirm its own jurisprudence, citing very recent rulings from September 2025. The justices consider that the case provides a necessary opportunity to establish a definitive interpretation of Article 2 of Law 4/2012 and Article 1273 of the Civil Code. This decision, although provisional and subject to the final review of the judgment, opens a twenty-day period for the opposing party to formally file its response.
For the tourism and legal sectors of San Bartolomé de Tirajana, the outcome of this ordinary procedure, which began in the Court of First Instance number 1, is vital. A ruling in favor of Anfi could provide protection for thousands of "floating" type contracts currently under judicial scrutiny, while a ratification of the annulment would solidify consumers' right to recover the amounts invested due to the lack of clarity regarding their vacation properties.
