Construction defects in Spain: second buyers can sue the developer under contract law (Spanish Supreme Court 666/2026)
The Spanish Supreme Court (1st Chamber, Judgment 666/2026 of 4 May, ECLI:ES:TS:2026:1964) confirms that the Building Regulation Act (LOE) does not displace contractual actions under the Civil Code. Communities of Owners and second buyers can sue the developer for damp, leaks and construction defects under Arts. 1124 and 1964 of the Spanish Civil Code.
A judgment that protects Communities of Owners and second-hand buyers
Judgment 666/2026 of 4 May of the Spanish Supreme Court, 1st Chamber (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:1964), reported by Justice Antonio García Martínez, settles a decisive question for thousands of property owners on the Costa Blanca: can second buyers sue the developer under contract law when the LOE's specific deadlines have already expired?
The Supreme Court answers bluntly: yes. In doing so it dismisses the appeals of the developer Promociones e Inmuebles Blauverd Mediterráneo, SL (in liquidation) and consolidates three criteria that every civil lawyer — and every affected owner — must keep in mind.
> Key takeaway: the Spanish Building Regulation Act (LOE) does not extinguish or displace the contractual actions of the Spanish Civil Code (Arts. 1124 and 1964 CC). When the short LOE deadlines or those of hidden defects (Art. 1490 CC) have run, the contractual route remains alive, strong and backed by the Supreme Court.
The facts: damp, leaks and flooding in Roquetas de Mar
The Community of Owners of a residential complex in Roquetas de Mar (Almería) sued the developer for damp, leaks and flooding in basements, expansion joints, garages, landscaped areas and installations, with deficient drainage and water evacuation systems. The pathologies were documented in an expert report by the architect Mr. Eloy.
The claim was based on contractual liability (Arts. 1089, 1101, 1124 and 1258 CC) to avoid the much shorter limitation and lapse periods of Arts. 1483, 1484, 1490 CC and Art. 17.1.b LOE.
The developer raised three defences, which the Supreme Court dismantles one by one.
The three criteria consolidated by Judgment 666/2026
1️⃣ Choosing the Civil Code contractual route is NOT abuse of law
The developer argued that resorting to the general contractual limitation period (Arts. 1124 and 1964 CC) instead of the shorter LOE or hidden-defect deadlines (Art. 1490 CC) was an abuse of law (Art. 6.4 CC).
The Supreme Court rejects this clearly: