At Summons Abogados, we are pleased to share a new legal achievement in defending our clients' property rights. Recently, our colleague Jorge Ballester Antón obtained a fully favourable ruling on a third-party claim filed against the Spanish State Tax Agency (Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria - AEAT).

The proceedings originated from an administrative enforcement process that improperly attached a property registered in the Property Registry of Sabiñánigo, which had previously been acquired by our client through the assignment of judicial auction rights in mortgage enforcement proceedings before the Court of First Instance No. 11 of Valencia.

To protect our client's rights, we filed a third-party claim pursuant to Article 595.1 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil):
"Any person who, without being a party to the enforcement, claims ownership of an attached asset as belonging to the debtor, and who did not acquire it from the debtor once the attachment had been executed, may file a third-party claim by way of a lawsuit."

We also invoked Article 117.2 of the General Collection Regulations (Royal Decree 939/2005):
"The third-party claim may only be based on ownership of the assets seized from the debtor or on the claimant’s right to be reimbursed with preference over the claim pursued in the enforcement proceedings."

The AEAT, following a favourable legal opinion from its Legal Service and in accordance with well-established Supreme Court case law, upheld our claim. Key rulings cited included:

• Supreme Court Judgment of 7 May 2003 (RJ 2003\3887): The sole purpose of a third-party claim is to release from attachment any assets wrongfully seized which do not belong to the debtor but to a third party whose ownership predated the attachment.

• Supreme Court Judgment of 13 July 2006 (RJ 2006\4967): It must be proven that the asset had already been removed from the debtor’s estate prior to the attachment.

• Supreme Court Judgment of 14 June 1996 (RJ 1996\4772): A precautionary seizure entry cannot be enforced against a prior acquirer, even if the right was not yet registered, since the attachment cannot affect property no longer in the debtor's estate, nor does the attaching creditor benefit from the protection of Article 34 of the Spanish Mortgage Act.

Additional precedents included Supreme Court Judgments of 8 July 1983 (RJ 1983\4122), 10 May 1994 (RJ 1994\3896), and 19 May 1997 (RJ 1997\3887).

Under Articles 609, 1095, 1218, and 1462 of the Spanish Civil Code, documentary evidence showed that the property had exited the debtor’s estate prior to the attachment. Consequently, the AEAT agreed to lift the attachment and cancel the registry entry.

This ruling sets an important precedent for protecting the rights of non-debtor owners against automatic administrative enforcement actions, confirming that the third-party claim remains the appropriate legal tool for excluding assets no longer belonging to the debtor from enforcement proceedings.

At Summons Abogados, we reaffirm our commitment to the legal and asset protection of our clients, offering specialised advice on enforcement procedures, administrative attachment, and third-party claims.

If you are facing an improper attachment or seek specialised legal assistance, contact our team for professional and rigorous case analysis.