June 2026
If public works in Spain damage your property or injure you, the contractor carrying out the works is liable as a general rule (Article 196 of Law 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts, the Spanish Public Procurement Law). The administration answers instead where the damage stems from its direct orders or from defects in the project it drafted. Before suing anyone, you have one year to ask the contracting authority to state who is responsible; that request interrupts the limitation period. And if the administration stays silent, Spanish case law makes it pay.
Who is liable for damage caused by public works in Spain?
As a general rule, the contractor executing the works is liable, not the public body that commissioned them. Article 196.1 of Law 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts (Ley de Contratos del Sector Público, LCSP) obliges the contractor to compensate all damage caused to third parties by the operations the contract requires. Liability shifts to the administration only in two specific scenarios, and those scenarios determine which court system will ultimately hear your claim.
This surprises many foreign property owners. The works are public, a town hall or a ministry pays for them, yet the party answerable to you is usually a private company. The Spanish Supreme Court explains it through causation: the contractor’s conduct “interferes decisively in the chain of causation, exonerating the administration” (Supreme Court, Administrative Chamber, judgment of 24 May 2007, ECLI:ES:TS:2007:3524). The contractor is not an employee of the administration; it is a third party executing the works at its own risk.
That said, identifying the contractor as the default defendant does not mean you should sue it straight away. Spanish law gives you a prior step — free of charge and with powerful effects on deadlines — that is almost always worth taking.
What the law says: Article 196 LCSP and its exceptions
Article 196 LCSP allocates liability in three rules: the contractor compensates third parties for damage caused by the execution of the contract (paragraph 1); the administration is liable where the damage is the immediate and direct consequence of one of its orders, or results from defects in the project in works contracts (paragraph 2); and the injured party may, within one year of the event, ask the contracting authority to state which party must respond (paragraph 3).
A working definition worth keeping:
Contractor’s liability towards third parties (Spain): the statutory obligation of a company awarded a Spanish public contract to compensate all damage its performance causes to third parties, unless the damage stems from an immediate and direct order of the administration or from defects in the project the administration drafted (Art. 196 LCSP).
The framework is completed by Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector: its Article 32.9 channels those two exceptional scenarios through the administrative procedure for patrimonial liability — Spain’s strict-liability regime for harm caused by public services. For service concessions there is a parallel rule in Article 288(c) LCSP: the concessionaire compensates damage caused by the service unless it is attributable to the administration. Legislation in force as of 13 June 2026 (consolidated LCSP text updated to 9 April 2026).
When does the Spanish administration have to pay? Direct orders and project defects
The administration pays when the damage is traceable not to how the contractor worked, but to what the administration ordered or designed. These are the two scenarios in Article 196.2 LCSP: an immediate and direct order (the contractor merely followed a specific instruction) and defects in the project in works contracts (the damage was, so to speak, written into the drawings).
Two examples. If the municipal site supervisor orders the trench rerouted and that order floods your premises, the damage flows from the order: the town hall pays. If the cracks in your villa appear because the project miscalculated the retaining walls for the excavation, the damage flows from the project: the administration that drafted or approved it pays, without prejudice to its right to recover from the project designer (Art. 315 LCSP). But if the contractor failed to fence off a trench and you fell into it, the damage flows from negligent execution: the contractor pays.
The dividing line is not always clean — mixed causes and concurrent liability happen — and the injured party rarely has access to the project or to the works orders. That is exactly why the statute provides the mechanism in paragraph 3.
The prior request under Article 196.3: the step almost nobody takes
Within one year of the damage you may formally request the contracting authority to state — after hearing the contractor — which party must answer for the damage. The request is optional, costs nothing and has one decisive effect: it interrupts the limitation period for your claim (Art. 196.3 LCSP). In our experience it is the single step that saves the most claims.
How to go about it:
- Document the damage immediately: dated photographs, incident reports, a police report where applicable, an expert survey, and repair invoices or estimates.
- Identify the works and their owner: the mandatory site board names the contracting administration, the contractor and the site management; contract details appear on Spain’s Public Procurement Platform.
- File the Article 196.3 request with the contracting authority, through its electronic registry, describing the facts, the damage and an estimated amount, and expressly asking it to state who is responsible.
- Wait for the statement: the administration must hear the contractor and reply. If it points to the contractor, the civil courts are open to you; if it accepts responsibility, the administrative patrimonial-liability procedure follows.
- Challenge the statement if you disagree: the Supreme Court judgment of 24 May 2007 confirms you can contest the attribution of responsibility before the administration and later before the administrative courts.
Why do we insist on this step? Because of limitation. The Supreme Court refused to treat a civil lawsuit filed only against a private party as interrupting the one-year period against the administration (judgment of 3 May 2000, appeal 1473/1996). Sue the contractor directly, get the defendant wrong, and you may find your claim against the administration time-barred. The 196.3 request freezes that risk.
Civil courts or administrative courts? Choosing the right track
It depends on whom you sue. If your claim targets the administration — alone or together with the contractor or its insurer — jurisdiction lies exclusively with the administrative courts: Article 9.4 of the Judiciary Act (Ley Orgánica 6/1985) requires claims against concurrent private parties to be brought before that same order, and Article 2(e) of Law 29/1998 on the Administrative Jurisdiction bars civil courts from hearing patrimonial-liability claims against public bodies. Only when you claim solely against the contractor (and, where relevant, its insurer) do you litigate in the ordinary civil courts under Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code.
| Claim against the administration | Claim against the contractor | |
|---|---|---|
| When it applies | Direct order of the administration or project defects | Damage arising from execution of the contract (general rule) |
| Prior step | Mandatory administrative claim (Law 39/2015) | None required; Art. 196.3 request and out-of-court demand advisable |
| Deadline to claim | 1 year (Art. 67 Law 39/2015) | 1 year, tort action (Art. 1968.2 Civil Code) |
| Decision period | 6 months; silence means rejection (Art. 91.3 Law 39/2015) | Whatever negotiation or the civil lawsuit takes |
| Court system | Administrative courts (appeal within 2 months of the decision, Art. 46 LJCA) | Civil courts |
| Liability standard | Strict: unlawful harm caused by a public service suffices | Fault-based: you must prove the contractor’s negligence |
Note the last row, because it changes your evidentiary strategy: against the administration you need not prove fault, only the damage, causation and that you had no legal duty to bear it; against the contractor, fault-based liability under Article 1902 applies, softened by the evidentiary presumptions Spanish civil courts use for hazardous activities.
What if the administration never replies? Its silence works in your favour
If you file the request and the administration fails to state who is responsible, Spanish case law shifts the duty to compensate onto the administration itself. The Supreme Court put it plainly: even if the contractor caused the damage, “having failed to so declare, liability must be assumed by the defendant administration, without prejudice to passing it on to whoever is actually responsible” (judgment of 30 November 2011, appeal 5978/2009).
The logic is protective: Article 196.3 LCSP makes the administration the referee between you and its contractor; if it abandons that role, it cannot profit from its own default by sending you on a pilgrimage between court systems. The judgment of 25 October 2016 (ECLI:ES:TS:2016:4625) follows the same line where no declaration was made. The prior request therefore has two favourable outcomes: either you get an official statement pointing you down the right track, or the silence strengthens a direct claim against the administration.
Mistakes that ruin well-founded claims
The mistake we see most often is suing the contractor in the civil courts without first securing your position against the administration. If the civil judge concludes the damage came from the project, you will have lost time and, probably, the one-year window against the administration (remember the judgment of 3 May 2000).
There are others. Letting the year run out “until the works finish”, when the clock starts as soon as the harmful effect becomes apparent (Art. 67 Law 39/2015). Claiming without proof of the property’s prior condition, which lets the insurer blame the cracks on age. Accepting the insurer’s first offer without a full expert valuation, including lost profits of a business that could not open. Or addressing the wrong public body: in co-funded works, the responsible entity is the contracting authority, not the body providing the subsidy.
None of these mistakes is fatal if caught early. All of them are once limitation has run.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to claim for damage caused by public works in Spain?
One year from the event or from when its harmful effect became apparent — both against the administration (Art. 67 of Law 39/2015) and against the contractor in the civil courts (Art. 1968.2 of the Civil Code). For personal injury, the year runs from recovery or from when the after-effects are finally assessed. The Article 196.3 request interrupts the limitation period.
Can I sue the administration and the contractor together?
Yes, but the whole case then goes to the administrative courts: Article 9.4 of the Judiciary Act requires claims against concurrent private parties — contractor and insurers included — to be brought before that order. It is the prudent option when it is unclear whether the damage stems from execution, an order or the project.
Is the prior request to the contracting authority compulsory?
No, it is optional: you may sue the contractor directly in the civil courts or file an administrative patrimonial-liability claim. It is strongly advisable, though, because it interrupts limitation, produces an official statement on who is responsible and, if the administration stays silent, case law places the duty to compensate on the administration itself.
What if the administration blames the contractor and I disagree?
You can challenge that statement before the administration and then before the administrative courts. Alternatively, you can accept its position and sue the contractor in the civil courts. What you should not do is ignore the statement: it conditions the strategy and the deadlines for everything that follows.
What losses can I actually claim?
Everything that flows from the harmful event and can be proven: material damage (cracks, flooding, repairs), personal injury assessed under statutory criteria, loss of profits (the turnover a blocked business lost) and documented expenses such as expert reports or temporary relocation. Spanish law aims at full compensation, but every head of damage needs rigorous proof.
Does the same rule apply if a concession company runs the service?
An analogous rule applies: the concessionaire must compensate damage caused to third parties by the operation of the service, unless the damage is attributable to the administration (Art. 288(c) LCSP). The practical route is identical: request a statement from the contracting authority, and choose your track depending on the answer.
Conclusion: secure the deadline first, choose the defendant second
“Who do I claim from?” has a legal answer, but reaching it without burning deadlines takes method: document the damage, file the Article 196.3 request within the year, and pick your track — civil or administrative — with the official statement in hand. Every week of delay works against you.
At Martínez-Cardós Abogados ee have over 30 years’ experience in bringing claims for financial liability against the Public Administation. We handle these claims for Spanish and international clients, assessing from day one who the likely responsible party is and which route maximises your chances. If public works have damaged your property in Spain, tell us about your case through our contact form and we will map out the steps and deadlines that apply to you.
Legal notice. This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis; please consult a qualified professional before taking decisions. Content based on Spanish legislation in force as of 13 June 2026.