Information Note on the Court’s case-law 28
March 2001
Ortiz Ortiz and Others v. Spain (dec.) - 50146/99
Decision 15.3.2001 [Section IV]
Article 14
Discrimination
Compensation granted by the Government, precluding any right to compensation later fixed by the courts: inadmissible
In October 1982 the Valencia region was hit by torrential rain that caused a dam to burst and collapse. The ensuing deluge caused serious flooding that damaged many properties including the applicants’. A criminal investigation was started a few days after the catastrophe. In view of the length of the court proceedings, which had still not ended ten years’ later, and the economic plight of many of the victims, the Government proposed a settlement for their benefit through two legislative decrees issued in 1993 in 1995. All the applicants accepted that settlement, whereas other victims decided to await the outcome of the judicial proceedings. In April 1997 the Supreme Court sentenced one of the dam engineers to a term of imprisonment and fines and ordered the State to pay compensation to the victims if he proved insolvent. Three of the applicants, who had been civil parties in the criminal proceedings, applied to the Audiencia provincial for execution of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Audiencia provincial dismissed their applications holding that the victims who had accepted the settlement under the aforementioned legislative decrees had in accordance with the provisions of those decrees waived the right to claim any other compensation from the authorities. In a separate development, a group of victims chose to issue proceedings in the administrative courts to obtain compensation. Some of those who opted for that course of action discontinued their proceedings after accepting the Government settlement. However, in a judgment delivered in October 1997, the Supreme Court, ruling on the arrangements for compensating the victims, held that victims who had discontinued their administrative appeals after accepting the Government’s settlement nevertheless retained the right to the full compensation assessed, after deduction of the amounts which they had received under the settlement with the Government. The compensation paid under the settlement with the Government was 50% to 80% less than that awarded by the courts to the victims who decided not to accept the settlement proposed by the Government or who decided to proceed with their administrative appeals. The applicants lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court arguing that they had been treated less favourably than the victims who had chosen to lodge an administrative appeal. That appeal was dismissed.
Inadmissible under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the applicants had accepted the settlement proposed by the Government under the legislative decrees of 1993 1995 of their own free will. The legislative decrees expressly laid down that persons claiming under them were required to waive any claim for compensation against the State through the courts. The applicants must have been aware of that waiver. In addition, the applicants had not challenged the validity of the settlement agreements that had been concluded in the domestic courts. The fact that the Supreme Court had subsequently held that the State had to pay higher compensation to the victims could not be construed as creating a new debt payable by the State to the applicants. In any event, if the applicants had had recourse to the administrative courts like some of the other victims, they would have received compensation in full, since in the case before the Court the Constitutional Court had taken that factor into account in dismissing the amparo appeal. The applicants simply did not have a new claim that was enforceable against the State: incompatible ratione materiae.
© 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