CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 August 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 79530/17 INMOBILIZADOS Y GESTIONES S.L. against Spain lodged on 8 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings aimed at the determination of compensation as a result of the expropriation of the applicant’s property. The applicant (a company) lodged five appeals on points of law (cassation appeal) with the Supreme Court against five judgments rendered by the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Section 4) that had ruled against the applicant. On the one hand, two of the appeals were declared admissible on 11 and 14 January 2016 (proceedings no. 3067/2015 and 3038/2015 respectively), and the Supreme Court later rendered judgments in the applicant’s favour (nos. 430/2017 and 431/2017, of 13 March 2017). On the other hand, the other three appeals were declared inadmissible by decisions of the Supreme Court of 7 July and 6 October 2016 (proceedings no.   3383/2015, 3854/2015 and 3918/2015). The applicant later lodged appeals for annulment ( incidente de nulidad ) against the decisions to declare the appeals on points of law inadmissible, which were also declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 24 and 29 November and 19   December 2016 – all these decisions were passed before the Supreme Court rendered the judgments in the applicant’s favour. Lastly, the applicant’s appeals with the Constitutional Court were also declared inadmissible by decisions of 8 and 11 May 2017. The applicant company claims that the five above-mentioned proceedings concerned five sections of the same plot of land, and the same subject-matter and legal dispute; the parties to the proceedings were the same; and the High Court of Justice had ruled against the applicant company based on the same grounds and ratio decidendi . Moreover, both the notices of appeal and the appeals on points of law lodged by the applicant company with the Supreme Court were substantially the same. QUESTION Did the applicant have a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court of 7 July and 6 October 2016 (proceedings no. 3383/2015, 3854/2015 and 3918/2015) that declared the applicant’s appeals on points of law inadmissible, and given that the Supreme Court had declared two similar appeals admissible and later rendered judgments in the applicant’s favour (nos. 430/2017 and 431/2017, of 13 March 2017), has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, 5 April 2018, and the authorities cited therein)? Did the Supreme Court, by declaring the applicant’s appeals on points of law inadmissible, apply excessive formalism and disproportionately affect the applicant company’s possibility of obtaining a final determination of the dispute by that court? Were the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court declaring the appeals of points of law inadmissible arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable?