CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF1EFFD76 { width:136.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 22946/24 PRODISOTEL S.A.U. against Spain and 39 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 July 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicants are companies which all belong to the Meliá hotel group, featuring different business models, such as ownership, lease, management or franchise. They complained that the Covid-19 restriction measures amounted to a de facto expropriation of their property rights and that the State had failed to compensate them for the suspension of their commercial activity. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. 2.     On 14 March 2020 the Spanish Government issued Royal Decree no.   463/2020 declaring a state of alarm for the management of the health emergency caused by Covid-19 ( Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el Covid-19 ). The Royal Decree established various lockdown measures to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. 3.     Article 10(4) of the Royal Decree ordered the suspension of any hospitality industry, which was later specifically extended to all activity in hotels. The hotels managed by the applicant companies were affected by these measures. 4 .     The Government adopted several other measures in the context of the pandemic, among which Royal Decree 7/2020, of 12 March, for the implementing of urgent measures to counterbalance the economic impact of Covid-19 ( Real Decreto 7/2020, de 12 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para responder al impacto económico del COVID-19 ). The decree included a chapter with measures to support the tourism sector, in particular in the form of financing facilities. 5 .     The applicant companies’ activities resumed as of 11 May 2020, albeit with several restrictions according to the deescalating plan published by the Government on 9 May 2020. 6.     The state of alarm remained in force until 21 June 2020. 7.     On 12 March 2021 the applicant companies sought State responsibility and claimed 118 million euros in compensation from the Council of Ministers on account of the suspension of their activities. They argued that the declaration of the state of alarm and the suspension had caused damages linked to the depreciation of value due to the lack of use of the hotel premises and loss of profit attributable to the lockdown measures. 8.     The Council of Ministers rejected the applicant companies’ claim on 20   December 2022. It declared, inter alia, that: (i) the measure to stop the activity of the hotels had not individually targeted the applicants as they had had a broader scope and affected all economic sectors; (ii) the progressive lifting of the measures had not been arbitrary and had been based on the protection of the public health; (iii) the applicant companies had not had to bear a special burden ( sacrificio especial ) compared with other sectors that could have generated a right to be compensated; (iv) based on the legislation it could not be said that the applicants had been expropriated; (v) a force majeure had led to the adoption of the Covid-19 measures. 9 .     The applicant companies challenged the decision before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in proceedings no.   304/2023. On 16 April 2024 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ claim. It first recalled that the same criteria had been applied in different recent judgments in which similar claims for compensation had been rejected. It cited a few of these cases: (i) in the hospitality industry; (ii) in the air transport; (iii) in a claim regarding the commercial activity taken as a whole; (iv) in the nightlife industry; (v) in the road transport sector. 10.     Regarding the measures that concerned the hospitality sector, the Supreme Court found that they were of a general nature and were aimed at protecting and preserving the physical integrity of the population and the public health. It further recalled that society as a whole had had to abide by decisions adopted by the public authorities and that the way to be compensated for those who had suffered more intensely from such general measures was not through a State responsibility claim but rather by requesting State benefits or allocations, according to the legislation. It further affirmed that the measures had not been unlawful, a point that had been accepted by the applicant companies in their claim. It found that the public interest in the protection of the public health had justified those general measures. It concluded that the measures had been necessary, adequate, and proportionate given the gravity of the situation and had been of general application. The Supreme Court did not find that the measures had amounted to a deprivation of property, noticing that there had not been any expropriation proceedings opened against the applicants. 11.     The Supreme Court’s judgment was notified to the applicants on 19   April 2024. The applications were lodged to the Court on 6 August 2024. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 12.     Having regard to the identical subject matter of the applications and considering that all the applicant companies belong to the same group, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 13.     The applicant companies complained that the Supreme Court had refused to accept that the situation resulting from the Covid-19 measures had amounted to a de facto expropriation and that the lockdown measures had been disproportionate. They alternatively claimed that the lack of any compensation would be a determinative factor to find a violation in the event the case should be examined as control of use of property. 14.     The Court has already found in some cases that a set of various measures applied by the public authorities could make them assimilable to expropriation. However, these cases concerned situations where the consequences were sufficiently serious as to entail the loss of all ability to dispose of the land or property in issue, taken together with the failure of the attempts made to remedy the situation (see Papamichapoulos and others v.   Greece , 24 June 1993, § 45, Series A no. 260-B, and Valisescu v.   Romania , 22   May 1998, §§ 51-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; see further Yavuz Özden v. Turkey , no. 21371/10, § 80, 14 September 2021 where the applicant had lost the control of his property from the moment when the area where it was located had been classified as a military zone by the authorities and Aygün v. Turkey , no. 35658/06, § 39, 14 June 2011 where the applicant had lost 40 per cent and 100 per cent of the value of the plots of land combined with the partial loss of physical access to them). 15.     In the present case the applicant companies had never lost the ownership of their properties and there had not been any expropriation proceedings against them or any court decision acknowledging a de facto expropriation. The Court observes that the applicant companies were not prevented from disposing of their properties. It further notes that the measures had a temporary character and that a deescalating plan was published on 9   May 2020 (see paragraph 5 above). Once the lockdown measures were lifted the hotel activity restarted and the companies’ professional activity resumed. The Court concludes that any interference with the applicants’ right to property cannot be considered a deprivation of property in the sense of a de facto expropriation (see, inter alia , Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no.   35014/97, §§ 160-161, ECHR 2006-VIII; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v.   Malta , no. 35349/05, § 59, ECHR 2006-X and Depalle v. France [GC], no.   34044/02, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2010). 16.     The Court considers that the applicant companies’ complaints can be examined from the angle of control of use of property because of the impact that the Covid-19 measures had on their economic activity. In any case, the Court has held that the principles governing the question of justification are substantially the same under the different rules of Article 1 of Protocol no   1, involving as they do the legitimacy of the aim of any interference, as well as its proportionality and the preservation of a fair balance (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v.   Russia , no. 16903/03, § 55, 1 April 2010). 17.     The Court observes that the applicant companies did not dispute the lawfulness of the measures, and that they conceded that the measures may have been in the general interest to protect public health. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. The remaining issue is whether the measures had been proportionate or whether the State had imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicant companies. 18.     The Court has previously summarised the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in Spain in the case of Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v.   Spain , no. 49363/20, 17 October 2024. The preamble of the Royal Decree declaring the state of alarm specifically included a reference to the extraordinary and temporary character of the measures (see Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain , cited above, § 38) which lasted from 14   March 2020 until 10 May 2020 for the most restrictive measures, with a progressive lift on the measures taken in accordance with the deescalating plan until 21   June 2020. The Court has held, albeit in the context of transitory austerity measures adopted in Portugal in an extreme economic situation, that the temporary character of the measures is normally taken to the advantage of the State when assessing proportionality (see, Da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), 8 October 2013, §§ 27-29). 19.     The Court has already had occasion to note that the Covid-19 pandemic was liable to have very serious consequences for health (see Fenech v.   Malta , no. 19090/20, § 96, 1 March 2022) and capable of having very serious consequences not just for health but for society, the economy, the functioning of the State and life in general (see, in the context of measures affecting freedom of movement, Terheş v. Romania (dec.), no.   49933/20, §   39, 13 April 2021). It recalls that, in matters of public health policies, States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the means to be employed and to the question of whether the consequences are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued (see Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino , no. 24622/22, § 92, 29 August 2024, and S.A. Bio d’Ardennes v. Belgium , no. 44457/11, § 44, 12 November 2019). The Court will respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is in the public interest unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, albeit in a different context, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §   113, 13   December 2016). 20.     The Court notes that similar measures were applicable in general to all economic sectors (see paragraph 9 above) and had not been addressed to a certain group of individuals or entities, which also runs in favour of the State (see R.Sz. v. Hungary , no. 41838/11, § 60, 2 July 2013). Also, it is common knowledge that such or similar measures were in place in almost all European countries – and worldwide, for that matter. 21.     Further, the Court recalls that the lack of compensation in the measures for the controlling of the use of property under the third rule of Article   1 of Protocol no. 1 is only a factor of the proportionality assessment (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010) and is not in itself sufficient to constitute a violation of that provision. In this case, the Supreme Court had explained that due to the force majeure character of the Covid-19 events those who had suffered more intensely from such general measures could benefit from State allocations according to the legislation but that the measures constituted no basis to claim State responsibility compensation per se . 22.     The Court concurs with the Supreme Court’s view that the limitation of hospitality activities during the three-month lockdown due to Covid-19 was a general measure for the protection of public health which was not individually aimed at the applicant companies. There is no appearance that the suspension of the applicants’ activities was arbitrary or disproportionate, especially given its rather rapid de-escalation. Moreover, the Court notes that the Spanish State adopted other measures such as financing facilities, in particular in the tourism sector, after the lockdown and suspension of commercial activities had been published to alleviate the economic impact of Covid-19 (see paragraph   4 above). 23.     Having regard to the considerations outlined above and in the absence of any manifest unreasonableness, the Court finds that the applicants did not suffer an excessive individual burden and there is no indication of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No 1. Consequently, the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be dismissed, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 September 2025.     Martina Keller   Kateřina Šimáčková   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on 1. 22946/24 Prodisotel S.A.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 2. 22969/24 Tenerife Sol S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 3. 22973/24 Isla Bella S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 4. 22981/24 Inversiones Hoteleras La Jaquita S.A. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 5. 23133/24 Tertian Xxi S.L.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 6. 23135/24 Comunidad de Propietarios Sol Y Nieve v. Spain 06/08/2024 7. 23137/24 Plaza Puerta Del Mar S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 8. 23152/24 Argamassa Hotelera S.L.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 9. 23155/24 Comunidad de Proprietarios Del Aparthotel Costa Del Sol v. Spain 06/08/2024 10. 23159/24 Torremolinos Beach Property S.L.U. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 11. 23161/24 Vivas Rapalo S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 12. 23166/24 Comunidad de Propietarios De Explotación Hotelera Del Hotel Melia Alicante v. Spain 06/08/2024 13. 23184/24 Hotel Aladia S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 14. 23190/24 Village Park Hoteles S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 15. 23200/24 Turismo de Invierno S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 16. 23203/24 Nexprom S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 17. 23204/24 Inversiones Y Explotaciones Turisticas S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 18. 23251/24 Fourth Project S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 19. 23252/24 Finca Los Naranjos S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 20. 23254/24 Altavista Hotelera S.L.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 21. 23255/24 Producciones de Parques S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 22. 23256/24 Casino Tamarindo S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 23. 23601/24 Colon Verona S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 24. 23606/24 San Antonio Beach Property S.L.U. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 25. 23612/24 Puerto Del Carmen Beach Property S.L.U. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 26. 23685/24 Apartotel, S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 27. 23687/24 30 Palma, S.A.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 28. 23691/24 Hotel Mallorquines Unidos, S.L. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 29. 23711/24 Starmel Hotels Op, S.L.U. v. Spain 06/08/2024 30. 23713/24 Promociones Financieras Turísticas, S.A. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 31. 23719/24 Centro Comercial Portugal, S.A. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 32. 23720/24 Hotelera Sancti Petri, S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 33. 23725/24 Realizaciones Turisticas, S.A. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 34. 24116/24 Jomavic, S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 35. 24117/24 Nueva Isla Baja, S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024 36. 24119/24 Palmanova Beach Property, S.L.U. v.   Spain 06/08/2024 37. 24136/24 Melia Hotels International, S.A. v.   Spain 05/08/2024 38. 24141/24 Barbacan, S.L. v. Spain 06/08/2024 39. 24145/24 Comunidad de Propietarios Del Aparthotel Melia Castilla v. Spain 06/08/2024 40. 25035/24 Aparthotel Bosque S.A. v. Spain 06/08/2024