The initial ruling that shielded the state from compensating hoteliers who closed during the Covid-19 outbreak has left a tangible mark on the sector. In total, 106 bar, restaurant, and hotel owners filed grievances with the high court. Since the ruling was published on October 31, the controversial Administrative Department of the Supreme Court has dismissed 48 petitions, assigning an average cost burden of about 4,000 euros per dismissed case.
In parallel, the first decision applying general criteria involved nearly a thousand sources. The case remains partly unresolved, with the Alhambra Palace Hotel in Granada among those officials seeking 417,000 euros in compensation for economic damage tied to the shutdown.
The court’s stance, echoed by spokesman Carlos Lesmes, the former president of the General Council of the Judiciary, makes clear that the unconstitutionality of alarm states does not validate the plaintiffs’ claims. The restrictions were deemed necessary, and there was a legal duty to endure them. Hoteliers argued that government foresight and delays in implementing measures against the virus justified their demands, but the court did not accept this argument.
315 million demand
Among the 48 cases already rejected is the Globalia Group, which reportedly sought roughly 315 million euros in compensation. In each instance, as with the first case, the Supreme Court noted that liability depends on unlawfulness, and in this context the damages claimed by hoteliers were not deemed unlawful because the measures taken by state administration to address the coronavirus were judged necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to the crisis’s seriousness. (Source: European Press, corroborating accounts from multiple outlets with attribution.)
The court also reminded readers that although royal decrees establishing the state of alarm were deemed partially unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, that unconstitutionality alone does not automatically create a valid basis for claims against responsibility handed down from prior generations. (Attribution: official court communications and contemporaneous legal analyses.)
Beyond the thousands of claims still awaiting decisions at the Supreme Court, a government cabinet review to consider up to 9,000 additional claims is anticipated. While a large portion is expected to be dismissed, precedent in current case law indicates that the majority of future appeals will likely fail before reaching a full judicial resolution. (Editorial notes and court-labeled guidance compiled by legal observers.)