Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63

April 2004

Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain - 62543/00

Judgment 27.4.2004 [Section IV]

Article 34

Victim

Individual applicants who were not parties to the domestic proceedings but belong to the applicant association which brought those proceedings in order to defend their interests: victim status accepted

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Alleged legislative intervention in pending court proceedings: no violation

Facts: The applicants lived in a village which was due to be flooded in order to construct a dam. They were the chairperson and members of an association, also an applicant, which had been set up for the purpose of co-ordinating efforts to prevent the dam’s construction. The association successfully applied to the courts for temporary suspension of work on the dam. However, a few months later a law on natural sites was passed which, according to the applicants, allowed construction work to resume. The Supreme Court, ruling on a point of law, definitively cancelled the construction project in part. On an application for a preliminary ruling, the Constitutional Court held that the law was compatible with the Constitution and noted that enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment had become impossible in that the cancelled project was compatible with the new law.

Law: Article 6 § 1 – “Victim” statusof the individual applicants: The applicants were not parties to the impugned proceedings in their own name, but through the intermediary of the applicant association. The Court considered that an evolutive interpretation had to be applied to the concept of “victim” in the light of contemporary conditions. It concluded that, having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant association had been set up for the specific purpose of defending its members’ interests before the courts and that those members were directly affected by the dam project, the individual applicants could claim to be victims, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violations of the Convention (Articles 6 and 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and that they had exhausted domestic remedies with regard to the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Applicability: In so far as the association complained of a specific and direct threat to its members’ personal possessions and lifestyles, the appeal had an “economic” and civil aspect and was based on an alleged breach of rights which were also economic. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court, although governed by public law, had been decisive for the final outcome of the action against the proposed dam. Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 was applicable to the proceedings in dispute.

Equality of arms: During the proceedings on the application for a preliminary ruling, the applicant association had not been invited to submit observations, unlike Counsel for the State and State Counsel’s Office. However, all the memorials in support of the arguments on the law’s unconstitutionality, previously submitted by the applicants through the intermediary of the applicant association, had been formally joined to these proceedings and the Constitutional Court had replied fully to the arguments; in addition, the applicants had not requested leave to participate in the proceedings although they could have relied on the Court’s previous case-law in the case of Ruiz-Mateos.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimous).

Enactment of a law during proceedings: The enactment of the law on regional planning during the proceedings concerning the proposed dam had not supported the applicants’ submissions, but the Court considered that it had not been passed for the purpose of circumventing the principle of the rule of law; in particular, the law had not been intended to remove the courts’ power to rule on the lawfulness of the proposed dam; it did not refer only to the area concerned by construction of the dam, but was of general application. Further, the applicants had successfully applied for examination of the compliance of certain of the law’s provisions with the Constitution and their arguments had been examined on the merits. In short, the dispute between the applicants and the State had been examined in compliance with the principle of a fair trial.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimous).

The Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the complaints lodged under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy