Date
Geographical Area
Europe
Countries
Spain
Keywords
Jurisdiction
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Case Name
Murillo Saldías & Ors v. Spain
Case Reference
Application no. 76973/01
Name of Court
European Court of Human Rights
Key Facts
This case concerns a flood which occurred at a campsite in the Spanish Pyrenees in 1996 when torrential rain caused the death of 87 people. The first named applicant lost his relatives in the disaster and the remaining applicants were injured themselves. The site had been developed by an individual on public land which belonged to the authorities. During an administrative procedure conducted prior to giving approval to develop the site, an expert had expressed concerns about the location of the site.
Following the accident, a criminal investigation was launched. However, the judge stated there was no case to answer and an appeal by the applicants was dismissed. The first applicant had successfully brought administrative proceedings against the authorities on the grounds of strict liability. He was awarded substantial damages in excess of €200,000 for the deaths of each of his relatives.
The applicants complained under Article 2 that the authorities had not taken adequate preventative measures to protect those in the campsite and had granted permission to use the land even though there had been concerns regarding potential danger. They also complained under Article 6(1) of procedural unfairness, alleging bias on the part of the judges and Spanish courts. They also complained under Article 13 that the authorities had not conducted a proper investigation in order to hold those responsible.
Following the accident, a criminal investigation was launched. However, the judge stated there was no case to answer and an appeal by the applicants was dismissed. The first applicant had successfully brought administrative proceedings against the authorities on the grounds of strict liability. He was awarded substantial damages in excess of €200,000 for the deaths of each of his relatives.
The applicants complained under Article 2 that the authorities had not taken adequate preventative measures to protect those in the campsite and had granted permission to use the land even though there had been concerns regarding potential danger. They also complained under Article 6(1) of procedural unfairness, alleging bias on the part of the judges and Spanish courts. They also complained under Article 13 that the authorities had not conducted a proper investigation in order to hold those responsible.
Decision and Reasoning
The Court held the case was inadmissible. The first applicant had been awarded compensation for the deaths of his relatives in administrative proceedings. The amount was held to be reasonable. He could no longer claim to be a “victim” under Article 34. The same applied to Articles 6 and 13 as his complaints were closely linked to the procedural aspect of Article 2, i.e. lack of victim status.
The remaining applicants had declined to bring administrative proceedings against the authorities before lodging their application before the European Court of Human Rights, resulting in the finding that they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
The remaining applicants had declined to bring administrative proceedings against the authorities before lodging their application before the European Court of Human Rights, resulting in the finding that they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Outcome
The case was dismissed.
Link
Disclaimer
This case law summary was developed as part of the Disaster Law Database (DISLAW) project, and is not an official record of the case.
Document
Document