ABSTRACT
Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos, a businessman, Mr Zoilo Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Rafael Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Isidoro Ruiz-Mateos, Mr Alfonso Ruiz-Mateos and Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos were brothers and sister. In 1983 they held 100% of the shares in RUMASA SA, the parent company of the RUMASA group, which comprised several hundred undertakings. RUMASA SA’s holding in these undertakings varied from one to the other. By a legislative decree of 23 February 1983 the Government ordered the expropriation in the public interest of all the shares in the companies comprising the RUMASA group, including those of the parent company. The State, which was the beneficiary of this measure, was to take immediate possession of the expropriated property through the intermediary of the Directorate General for National Assets. The aim of the expropriation and transfer of possession of the companies concerned was to protect the public interest because, in order to finance the group’s companies, its banks had taken risks considered to be disproportionate in relation to their solvency, thereby jeopardising the stability of the banking system and the interests of the depositors, employees and third parties. On 9 May 1983 Mr José María Ruiz-Mateos instituted proceedings for 50% of the shares. The other five applicants followed suit on 27 May with regard to the remaining shares. Preliminary questions were referred to the Constitutional Court. On 23 December 1986 the action for restitution was dismissed. On 27 December 1986 the applicants appealed to the Audiencia provincial of Madrid. Following a reference to the Constitutional Court the Audiencia provincial dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 25 February 1991. The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings and that they had not had a fair hearing in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as Counsel for the State, their opponent in the civil proceedings, was able to submit to the Constitutional Court. Comm found by majority (13-2) V 6(1) with regard to a fair hearing, (11-4) V 6(1) with regard to length of proceedings.
