CASE OF COMUNIDAD DE PROPRIETARIOS PANDO NÚMERO 20 v. SPAIN
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant is a community of owners of a building located in Madrid. 5. On 13 June 1991 L., the co-owner of a house located next to the applicant’s building, filed a complaint before the Madrid municipality, complaining that a dividing wall belonging to the applicant’s building and two other buildings located next to it was in poor condition. 6. On 25 April 1994, in view of the “serious risk of harm” posed by the poor condition of the wall, the municipality repaired it motu proprio. 7. On 30 August 1994 the applicant received a decree issued by the municipality on 29 July 1994, informing it that the repairs had been carried out in view of the “serious risk of harm” posed by the condition of wall in question, and ordering it to pay a provisional amount of 18,030.36 euros (EUR). 8. On 21 October 1994 the applicant initiated proceedings opposing the municipality’s demand, contesting the necessity of the urgent repairs. 9. On 29 October 1994, before the Madrid High Court of Justice, the applicant brought a first set of judicial administrative proceedings (recurso contencioso-administrativo) against the decree of 29 July 1994, complaining of the shortcomings of the procedure which had led to the municipality repairing the wall. 10. On 18 March 1996 the municipality asked the applicant to pay the remainder of the amount owed: the final cost of the repairs minus the amount already paid as a provisional amount. 11. On 16 July 1996, before the Madrid High Court of Justice, the applicant initiated a second set of judicial administrative proceedings (recurso contencioso-administrativo), contesting the amount of the requested payment and asking for a suspension of its obligation to pay that amount. 12. On 20 November 1996 the application to suspend its obligation to pay was rejected. That decision was confirmed by the Madrid High Court of Justice and the Supreme Court on 11 July 1997 and 23 February 2001 respectively. 13. On 6 March 1998 both sets of judicial administrative proceedings were joined. 14. On 9 December 2004 the Madrid High Court of Justice ruled against the applicant, on the grounds that the repairs had been carried out by the municipality in view of the poor condition of the wall and the “serious risk of harm” present at that time, which had given the municipality no other choice but to repair it and then ask the applicant for payment in respect of the costs incurred. The Madrid High Court of Justice also confirmed the amount set for the costs of the repairs. 15. On 3 March 2005 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, which was declared inadmissible more than four years later on 29 May 2009. This decision was served on the applicant on 9 June 2009. 16. On 10 December 2009 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. 17. On 31 January 2010 the community of owners agreed to authorise Mr. García Caballero to act on its behalf in the framework of the judicial proceedings concerning the costs of the repairs to the wall. 18. By a decision of 28 April 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the amparo appeal inadmissible on the grounds that “the constitutional significance of the appeal had not been justified”. This decision was served on the applicant on 6 May 2010.