On 14 December 2022, Economist&Jurist echoed a decision of the Supreme Court which overturned a ruling of the Provincial Court of Valencia and awarded a woman 3,000 euros in compensation for infringement of her right to honor by entering her data in files for non-existent debts.

In the case brought before the High Court, the plaintiff, under Law 1/1982 of 5 May 1982 on the civil protection of the right to honor, to personal and family privacy and to one’s own image, had brought an action for damages against Lindorff Investment on the grounds that the company, by wrongfully including her in a register of debtors, had unlawfully interfered with her honor and was seeking compensation of €6,000 for this.

After having obtained a partial upholding of her claim at first instance, regarding the cancellation of her data in the debt collection files in which she had been illegitimately included, but having had her claim for compensation rejected, she lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Provincial Court of Valencia. Specifically, the Court concluded that the injuries caused to the plaintiff had not been proven, nor had the benefit obtained by the injurer as a result of the injury been proven. Furthermore, noting that there had been no previous claims, it pointed out that the plaintiff was already in a situation of insolvency due to the existence of other unpaid debts, and that, for this reason, she was not surprised by her inclusion in the files, nor was it proven that it had caused her any economic or moral damage.

The Supreme Court, referring to its doctrine on this matter, in its recent ruling overturned the decision of the High Court, alluding to the fact that the inclusion of a person’s data in a register of debtors without complying with the requirements established by the LORD would be compensable due to an affectation of dignity, operating a presumption iuris et de iure, i.e. not susceptible to proof to the contrary, of the existence of the compensable damage. Specifically, it pointed out that “the existence of other registered debts of a much higher amount, the absence of the defendant’s benefit or the lack of previous claims filed by the plaintiff before different bodies, can only be taken into account for the purpose of quantifying the amount of the compensation, but this can never be merely symbolic, much less reduced to zero“. On this basis, it awarded the plaintiff €3,000 in compensation.

At Albos Law we have extensive experience in cases similar to the subject of this news item and, therefore, we offer a complete legal advice service to all those interested parties who may be affected by a similar situation.