Claiming Against the State for Judicial Delays

Today we are highlighting an important ruling secured by our colleague Daniel Sanchez Bernal, in which the Constitutional Court upheld the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.

Article written by

Conesa Legal

At Conesa Legal, a legal advisory firm based in Barcelona, we have a team of lawyers specialized in all areas of law. We also provide comprehensive advisory and management services covering payroll, tax and accounting, and corporate compliance for both companies and self-employed professionals. We stand out for our expertise in labor law and social security, offering a highly specialized and personalized service since 1976. Our services include both preventive and reactive legal advice and representation, tailored to the needs of businesses and workers alike. Our multilingual team provides legal assistance in English, French, and Spanish, and is well prepared to support a broad range of local and international clients, whether they are companies seeking comprehensive legal solutions or individuals in need of personalized legal advice.

View professional profile

Can I claim damages for delays in the justice system?

The significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the Constitutional Court opens the door to claims for State liability where there has been undue delay in judicial proceedings and a ruling is ultimately issued far too late.

How can I claim damages from the State for a delayed ruling?

1. The first step: identifying the damage

• Actual Damage:

  • The harm must be real, specific, and not merely hypothetical.
  • It must be quantifiable in economic terms and properly documented.
  • Examples include: material losses, loss of earnings, or moral harm arising from administrative action, and now, following this ruling, also harm caused when courts take excessively long to issue rulings and justice arrives too late.

• Causal Link:

  • It is essential to demonstrate a direct connection between the harm suffered and the action or omission of the State.
  • It is not sufficient to argue that the harm merely coincided in time with the administrative action; it must be established that the harm would not have occurred but for that action.
    
    

2. Preliminary requirements for claiming compensation from the State for judicial delays

• Limitation Period:

  • General rule: One year from the date the damage occurs or from the date the affected party becomes aware of it.
  • In cases of ongoing damage, the limitation period begins to run from the moment the harmful situation ceases.
  • Exceptions: Certain circumstances may interrupt the limitation period, such as the lodging of prior appeals.

• Administrative Action:

  • The damage must stem from a specific action, whether an administrative act, an omission, negligence, or the abnormal functioning of the public administration (for example, excessive delays in processing), and now also from the abnormal functioning of the justice system, where hearings are scheduled and rulings are issued with excessive delay.

3. Filing a Claim for Damages Arising from Delayed Judgments

• Initiating the Administrative Process before the Competent Authority:

  • The claim must be directed to the authority that issued the act, carried out the activity, or was responsible for the omission that caused the damage.
  • In cases involving liability of the judiciary, the claim must be directed to the Ministry of Justice.

• Content of the Patrimonial Claim against the State:

  • Claimant identification: Personal details, address and any other relevant contact information.
  • Description of the damage: A detailed account of the facts, the nature of the harm suffered and its financial valuation.
  • Causal link: An explanation of how the administrative action directly caused the damage.
  • Supporting documentation: Evidence substantiating the damage and its valuation (invoices, expert reports, administrative documents, etc.).
  • Compensation sought: The amount claimed and the justification for it.

4. Investigation Phase of the Patrimonial Claim against the State

• Admissibility Review:

  • The administrative authority reviews the claim to verify that it meets the formal and substantive requirements.
  • If the claim is incomplete, the authority may require the claimant to remedy any deficiencies within a specified period.

• Evidence:

  • The claimant may submit additional evidence during the investigation phase.
  • The administration may request reports or expert evidence to assess the damage and its connection to the administrative action.

• Council of State Report:

  • In claims of particular significance or complexity, the administrative authority may request a mandatory and binding opinion from the Council of State or equivalent bodies.

5. Administrative Decision on the Claim for Damages against the State

• Time Limit for Resolution:

  • The Administration has a maximum period of six months to issue and notify its decision.
  • This period may be extended in exceptional, duly justified circumstances.

• Administrative Silence:

  • If no decision is issued within the prescribed period, the claim is deemed to have been rejected by negative administrative silence.
  • This deemed rejection entitles the claimant to pursue judicial proceedings.

6. Administrative appeal Against the State's Denial of Liability

• Judicial Challenge:

  • If the claim is rejected or not resolved within the prescribed period, the affected party may bring an administrative appeal before the courts.
  • This appeal allows the affected party to challenge the Administration's decision and request a review of the facts.

• Deadline for Lodging the appeal:

  • Two months from notification of the express decision.
  • In the event of administrative silence, the deadline runs from the date on which the claim is deemed to have been rejected.

7. Enforcement of the ruling

• Compensation for Damages Arising from Delays in the Justice System:

  • If the court upholds the appeal and declares the State's patrimonial liability, it will order payment of the corresponding compensation.
  • Payment must be made on the terms set out in the ruling, including any applicable default interest.

• Compliance with the ruling:

  • The Administration is obliged to comply with the terms of the ruling, and forced enforcement may be sought in the event of non-compliance.

Closing Thoughts:

The ruling is significant. That said, caution is warranted. There was already a body of precedent allowing claims for the abnormal functioning of the justice system, and the Constitutional Court's confirmation that the administrative route for State patrimonial liability may be pursued directly is a welcome development.

The key difficulty lies in quantifying the damages to be claimed. Where a pension is involved, the court, albeit belatedly, will already recognise the arrears. Will it be possible to claim interest on top of that? Damages always need to be proven: will courts award moral damages? And could a claimant be ordered to pay costs in the administrative proceedings if the claim is found to be vexatious?

As always, each case must be assessed on its own merits. But the debate is well and truly open, and one to watch closely.

employment lawyer for slow justice claims