Is it possible to reopen a case that already has a final judgment?

Question

José Manuel Alburquerque · Accepted Answer

As a general rule, no. A final judgment has the effect of res judicata, which prevents the same parties from litigating over the same matter again, even on the basis of facts or arguments that already existed and were not raised in the first case. There are only a few exceptional routes, with short time limits, for example if decisive documents come to light that could not be produced, if the judgment was obtained by fraud or with evidence declared false or if the defendant did not know about the case for a reason not attributable to them. What is possible, however, is a new case based on facts that occurred after the judgment. Res judicata A final judgment is definitive between the parties. If one of them brings another claim on the same matter, the other can plead res judicata and the judge dismisses the case without examining the merits, normally at the preliminary hearing (“audiencia previa”). In addition, the law requires all the facts and legal grounds that are known or can be relied on at that time to be pleaded in the claim, without keeping any back for later proceedings. Whatever could have been pleaded and was not is treated as if it had been pleaded. In the case explained in the publication, in 2016 an owner challenged the resolution of the owners' association (the “comunidad de propietarios”) that prohibited holiday lets and lost, among other reasons because the owner had not mentioned having already applied for the licence. Years later, with the licence recognised by the administrative courts, the owner sued the association again, this time over what had been said at an owners' general meeting in 2024. The court upheld the plea of res judicata at the preliminary hearing, dismissed the case and ordered the owner to pay the costs, because those facts already existed and could have been pleaded in the first case. The exceptional routes Only these routes, all of them exceptional, are available against a final judgment: Review of a final judgment (“revisión”), which is requested from the “Tribunal Supremo”, Spain's Supreme Court, or, in some matters of Catalan civil law, from the “Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña”, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. It is available if decisive documents come to light afterwards that could not be produced because of force majeure or through the fault of the winning party, if the judgment was based on documents declared false or on witnesses or experts convicted of giving false evidence, or if it was obtained through bribery, violence or fraudulent scheming. The time limit is three months from discovery of the ground and never more than five years from publication of the judgment. Rescission of the judgment (“rescisión”) at the request of a defendant who was in default, that is, absent throughout the proceedings, if they could not appear because of force majeure or never learnt of the claim for a reason not attributable to them. The time limit is twenty days from personal notification of the judgment or four months from the notice by publication (“edicto”) through which it was notified. Those time limits are only extended in cases of force majeure and never exceed sixteen months. Annulment of the proceedings (“nulidad de actuaciones”), if there was an infringement of one of the rights protected by the “recurso de amparo” (the individual appeal to the “Tribunal Constitucional”, Spain's Constitutional Court), such as the right to defend oneself, without it having been possible to raise this earlier. It is requested from the court that gave the final decision, within twenty days of the defect becoming known and never more than five years after notification. Review where the European Court of Human Rights declares that a right under the European Convention was infringed and the infringement can only be remedied in that way. The time limit is one year from when that judgment becomes final. What res judicata does not prevent Res judicata does not extend to new facts, arising after the first case, which may justify a different claim. Nor does it cover some judgments that the law leaves open, such as those in evictions for non-payment or at the end of the tenancy term and those in summary proceedings to protect possession, which allow the underlying issue to be argued later in other proceedings. On the other hand, a later decision of another court, such as one recognising a licence, does not in itself reopen a civil case that has already been decided.