Published on 8 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 11655/25
Jose Luis MORENES MARIATEGUI
against Spain
lodged on 10 April 2025
communicated on 22 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant was the owner of a property in the Doñana National Park. He requested the expropriation of the land in 1994, for which he was entitled by the Law no. 91/78 on the National Park of Doñana. The request was refused by the Administration, but this decision was finally overturned by the Supreme Court by a judgement of 24 February 2003, which granted the owner’s right to get his land expropriated by the State.
In August 2003 an administrative decision was issued by the public entity Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales ordering to initiate the expropriation proceedings. The applicant brought a procedural incident for the execution of the judgement before the Superior Court of Madrid. According to the documents submitted, the request received no answer until 2013. In 2013 that court found that the competence of the expropriation had been transferred from the State to the Autonomous Community of Andalucía. On 10 February 2014 the latter ordered to initiate the execution proceedings. As there was no agreement about the fair price (justiprecio) for the purchase, on 20 December 2019 the administration decided finally on an amount of 360.675,76 euros (EUR), in accordance with the criteria established in the Land Law no. 7/2015.
The applicant challenged this decision before the Superior Court of Andalucía on the grounds that the determination of the compensation should have been done according to the method provided in the Land Law no. 8/2007 (previous to the Land Law no. 7/2015 and which, had it been applied, would presumably had set a higher compensation). The court upheld the approach of the Administration according to which the determination of the fair price of the property should be done according to the law in force at the moment of the beginning of the proceedings to determine the compensation, which took place once the new Land Law 7/2015 had already come into force.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on the same grounds, which was declared inadmissible for lack of cassational interest.
The applicant’s amparo appeal was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional court for lack of constitutional interest by a decision summoned on 12 December 2024.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the infringement of the right to a decision within a reasonable time. He claims that he has suffered a “judicial odyssey” as he, among other owners, first requested the expropriation of his land in 1994. He alleges that the Administration has repeatedly failed to execute the judgement of 24 February 2003 and it was only thirteen years later when execution proceedings were initiated.
The applicant further relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on the grounds that the delay in the execution proceedings has amounted to an inferior fair value of the property. The applicant raises the breach of the principle of fair balance that informs Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?