Over the years the Port of Barcelona faced a string of legal actions across multiple departments and extensions. In the spotlight were criminal and civil cases that drew attention to its governance and project management. Several defendants, including managers from construction companies involved in the Prat pier and container terminal project, were scrutinized for the use of materials and the handling of the tender process. A notable development was the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Port Authority would be responsible for a substantial payment to those who contributed to the construction of the Prat container terminal and related facilities, amounting to approximately 1.2 million dollars in total compensation to the firms involved in the project.
The Supreme Court annulled a prior decision by the Barcelona Regional Court that favored the Port Authority and upheld the verdict of the 47th Court of First Instance in Barcelona. In May 2017, Ferrovial Agroman y Construcciones y Estudios, later reorganized as Cyes Infraestructuras, was ordered to pay 565,117 euros plus VAT and interest totaling 486,695 euros. The court also required payments of 56,770 euros to Ferrovial Agroman and 64,868 euros to Cyes Infrastructure to cover costs connected with warranties through delivery in 2014.
Back in 2004, the Port announced a public tender for the creation of the necessary infrastructure to establish a new container terminal at the Prat quay area, with an announced value of 51,343,995 euros. A temporary association of companies that won the contract sought a price adjustment on a February 1, 2005 invoice. While the port authority requested the return of the guarantees, they were rejected. On January 1, 2007, Phase I of the Prat dock experienced a serious malfunction. Sixteen containers appeared displaced and the fill material inside them spilled out, signaling a significant fault.
Instead of refunding the deposit, the port’s general manager opened a file to determine potential liability for the malfunction, proceeding in a measured, proportionate manner to assess who might be responsible. The decision to withhold the deposit during the investigation led to ongoing litigation involving Ferrovial Agroman and Cyes Infraestructuras.
contractual outcome
The Supreme Court clarified employment contracts are, in principle, consequential agreements rather than guarantees that the contractor will complete the work for a fixed price. The court noted that the Barcelona Court had erred in how it interpreted and handled perceived ambiguities and internal inconsistencies in the contract. The ruling extended the waiver of the right to compensation for damages caused by force majeure to the broader right to revisit prices, highlighting that this approach conflates distinct legal concepts and represents a notable exception to the risk-and-profit principle in construction contracts.
The high court emphasized that there was no lack of clarity or gaps in the contract that would justify reading beyond the contract’s literal terms to uncover unspoken intentions. It stated that the contract’s own language should govern, andWarned against interpreting the exclusion of compensation for force majeure as applying to a different situation, such as a price revision. A 2019 decision cited in the ruling had found that the companies met their contractual obligations and bore no liability, which the Civil Chamber viewed as inconsistent with the challenged decision. This inconsistency led to the Civil Chamber’s conclusion that the prior ruling, and its application to the January 2007 incident, warranted closer scrutiny. [Citation: Supreme Court ruling, Civil Chamber proceedings in Barcelona related to the Prat dock case.]