CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92 December 2006 Murillo Saldías and Others v. Spain (dec.) - 76973/01 Decision 28.11.2006 [Section IV] Article 34 Victim Administrative proceedings provided adequate compensation for the deaths of relatives in the flooding of a campsite which had been officially authorised to open: inadmissible   Article 2 Positive obligations Deaths resulting from flooding of campsite opened with official authorisation and effectiveness of the subsequent criminal investigation: inadmissible (lack of victim status, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)   Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Failure to use administrative law remedy for injuries sustained in the flooding of a campsite which had been officially authorised to open: inadmissible   The case concerns the disaster at the Biescas camp site (Spanish Pyrenees) in 1996 when flooding caused by torrential rain left 87 people dead and dozens more injured. The first applicant lost his parents and brother and sister in the catastrophe while the other applicants all received injuries. The campsite had been developed by a private individual on public land belonging to the local authority. Prior administrative approval to develop the site had been given following an administrative procedure involving various municipal and regional authorities. During the course of that procedure one of the experts consulted expressed reservations about the location of the site and the soundness of corrective works that had been carried out to prevent flooding. Following the accident, a criminal investigation was started and the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties. However, the investigating judge ruled that there was no case to answer, as the constituent elements of the alleged offences had not been made out. An appeal by the applicants against that decision was dismissed and an application for amparo relief in the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible as being unfounded. However, the first applicant successfully brought administrative proceedings against the central and regional authorities in the Audiencia Nacional on the grounds of strict liability. In 2005 he was also awarded substantial damages (in excess of EUR 200,000 for the deaths of each of his relatives). He lodged an appeal on points of law which is still pending before the Supreme Court. The applicants complained under Article   2 that the authorities had not taken adequate preventive measures to protect users of the campsite and had granted permission to use the land despite being aware of the potential dangers. They also complained under Article   6(1) of procedural unfairness, in the form of bias on the part of the investigating judges and the Spanish courts. Lastly, they complained under Article   13 that the authorities had not conducted a proper, in-depth judicial investigation in order to identify those responsible for the catastrophe. Inadmissible : The first applicant had been awarded compensation for the deaths of his relatives in administrative proceedings. The amount could not be regarded as unreasonable and was likely to be confirmed or even increased on appeal. Accordingly, he could no longer claim to be the “victim” within the meaning of Article   34 of a violation of his rights under Article   2. The same applied to Articles   6 and   13, as his complaints under those provisions were closely linked to the procedural aspect of Article   2: lack of “victim” status . The remaining applicants had merely joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties and had declined to bring administrative proceedings against the authorities before lodging their application with the Court: failure to exhaust domestic remedies . For further details, see Press Release no. 808.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes