Published on 30 May 2022
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 47928/21
COMUNIDAD DE REGANTES SANTA MARIA MAGDALENA
against Spain
lodged on 22 September 2021
communicated on 10 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a decision of an administrative court in the sole instance. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim for State liability without having addressed one of the main points raised by the applicant, concerning an allegation that the State had caused it pecuniary damage due to an unforeseeable change in the criteria for allocating subsidies aimed at upgrading irrigation infrastructures, having therefore acted in breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and prohibition of inconsistent behaviour to the detriment of others. Against such a decision the applicant could lodge only extraordinary remedies: a nullity plea and/or an appeal on points of law.
In the absence of clear regulation regarding the order in which those remedies could be used, the applicant, relying on the Supreme Court’s case-law, lodged firstly an appeal on the points of law with the Supreme Court, which was not admitted on the ground of “lack of cassational interest”. Subsequently, in accordance with the aforementioned case-law, it lodged a nullity plea with the administrative court which had ruled on the case. However, that court did not admit the nullity plea on the ground that it should have been lodged withing a 20-day time limit counting from the day the applicant had been notified of the judgment.
The applicant alleged that the lack of clear regulation combined with excessive formalism in interpreting admissibility requirements has hindered its right to access to court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been deprived of its right of access to court enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018)?
In particular, can it be said that the case-law of the Supreme Court in this regard provided sufficient foreseeability on the restrictions of access to it (see Zubac, cited above, §§ 87-89, and Arrozpide Sarasola and Others v. Spain, nos. 65101/16 and 2 others, §§ 106-107, 23 October 2018)?
Has the procedure concerning the plea of nullity before the administrative court been attained by “excessive formalism” (see Zubac, cited above, §§ 96-99, and Arrozpide Sarasola and Others, cited above, § 99)?