"Doble tiro" and "reformatio in peius" in Spanish Administrative Law: Supreme Court Judgment of 11 June 2026 Protects the Winning Party

The Spanish Supreme Court judgment of 11 June 2026 (RC 2838/2024) sets binding doctrine in administrative law: when the public administration issues a new act after a court annulled the previous one ("doble tiro"), it cannot worsen the winning party's position unless the ruling expressly authorises it. We analyse the judgment, the three annulment scenarios and its impact on cadastral valuations, tax files and sanctioning proceedings.

Introduction: the Supreme Court shields the winning party from the administrative "second shot"

In Spanish administrative law, "doble tiro" (literally "second shot") refers to the possibility that the public administration, after a court annuls an administrative act, issues a fresh act on the same subject-matter. The long-standing question is how far that power extends and where the limits lie when the citizen has already won the lawsuit.

The [Spanish Supreme Court Judgment of 11 June 2026](https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/indexAN.jsp) (Third Chamber, cassation appeal 2838/2024) sets a major doctrine:

> *"Judicial rulings must be complied with in their own terms (arts. 118 of the Constitution and 103 et seq. LJCA), so that the administration may not, on the occasion of their execution, introduce decisions, burdens or obligations on the winning party that it had not been expressly empowered to impose in the operative part, and which worsen the legal situation of the party benefited by it."*

In plain terms: the "second shot" can never be more burdensome for the winner than the annulled act, unless the ruling itself expressly authorises it. This is the enshrinement, in the field of administrative execution, of the classical "non reformatio in peius" principle.

At Bufete Padilla, with offices in Torrevieja, Elche and Moraira and a strong practice in administrative, tax and planning law, we summarise the key points of this ruling and its practical consequences for taxpayers, property owners and companies.

1. Facts: annulled cadastral valuation of the Port of Bilbao

The case decided by the Supreme Court concerned a Special-Characteristics Property (BICE): the Port of Bilbao.

  • The valuation report for the BICE and the individualised values notified on its basis were annulled by a final court judgment because the administration had used an incorrect methodology.
  • The judgment ordered procedural retroaction so that a new report could be issued.
  • In execution, the administration approved a new report and notified new individualised values, giving them retroactive effect from the date of the original (annulled) report, relying on [article 39.3 of Law 39/2015](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-10565) (retroactivity of favourable acts or those replacing annulled ones).

The taxpayer appealed: the new act worsened its position compared to the situation after annulment —by dragging multi-year retroactive effects— and exceeded what the original judgment authorised.

2. Ratio decidendi: the judgment commands, the administration obeys

The Supreme Court addresses two planes: