In Spain, lawsuits over construction defects have long been commonplace, but a recent Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) decision could change the rules for everyone involved in the building industry. At the heart of the matter is the question of when the deadline actually expires for bringing claims against architects and other professionals involved in construction.
Difficulties defining deadlines
Law 38/1999 on the Regulation of Building (Ley de Ordenación de la Edificación, LOE) clearly distinguishes warranty periods and limitation periods. Each type of damage comes with its own timeframe: ten years for structural issues, three years for problems affecting habitability, and only one year for finish defects. However, once a defect becomes apparent, affected parties have just two years to take the matter to court.
A case reviewed by the Supreme Court in October 2025 involved a residential building in San Rafael (Segovia). After numerous defects were discovered, the residents sought justice in court, filing claims against both the developer and the technical architect responsible for overseeing the work.
The long road to justice
Initially, the trial court ordered both parties to remedy the identified defects. However, on appeal in Madrid, the technical architect managed to overturn the decision in his favor: the judges found that the residents had not sent him a separate demand before the two-year legal deadline expired.
However, it was revealed that the architect was not only aware of the problems but also actively participated in discussions with residents, attended meetings, responded to emails, and even personally supervised some of the repair work. This fact became key in the further examination of the case.
Arguments of the parties and the court’s position
The residents argued that the architect could not have been unaware of the complaints, since he was present at all discussions and was involved in the process of addressing the issues. They referred to court precedents which state that the statute of limitations should not apply if there is a close connection between the parties, indicating awareness of the claims.
The Supreme Court carefully examined the arguments of both sides and concluded that the architect was indeed aware of the residents’ demands. The court noted that the expert’s active involvement in resolving the issues demonstrated his direct engagement, meaning that the formal absence of a separate notification could not be grounds for releasing him from responsibility.
Implications of the decision for the construction industry
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittal of the architect and reinstated his liability for remediation of the defects. This decision could set a precedent for similar disputes, as courts are now required to consider not only formal notifications, but also the actual involvement of specialists in addressing deficiencies.
For construction companies and technical specialists, this means they must pay closer attention to communication with residents and document every action taken to address defects. Otherwise, even minimal involvement in discussions could be interpreted as an admission of liability.
New guidelines for all market participants
Experts note that the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of transparency and integrity in relations between residents, developers, and architects. Now, attempts to avoid liability through formal procedures may prove ineffective if actual knowledge of problems and involvement in their resolution can be demonstrated.
Residents, in turn, have gained an additional tool to protect their rights. Even if formal complaints were not submitted on time, the active involvement of specialists in fixing defects may serve as grounds for holding them responsible.
As RUSSPAIN previously reported
Technical architects in Spain (arquitectos técnicos) play a crucial role at every stage of construction. They are responsible for quality control, compliance with building regulations, and coordination among the various parties involved in the process. Unlike the lead architect, the technical specialist is usually present on site, directly interacting with workers and clients. In recent years, their responsibilities have become the subject of numerous legal disputes, especially after the implementation of the LOE. Many architects note that job requirements have tightened, and courts are increasingly demanding evidence of their involvement in addressing defects. Within the professional community, there is active discussion about the need for additional liability insurance and detailed documentation of all interactions with residents. Some experts believe that new court rulings could lead to revisions of standard contracts and stronger legal protection for professionals. In any case, the role of the technical architect in modern construction projects continues to grow, and their professional reputation is becoming one of the key factors in earning trust in the real estate market.
