The HCCJ has held that, in the case of damage caused by a refusal to conclude an exchange contract for two or more properties, the prescription period for bringing an action starts to run from the date on which the exchange contract was concluded, since it is only at that time that the actual extent of the damage can be known.
In the case in question, a public authority refused for a long time to enforce a court judgment requiring it to conclude an exchange contract with the applicant in respect of certain land in the public domain of the administrative-territorial unit and the applicant’s land.
The applicant considered that the refusal to conclude the exchange contract had caused him damage as a result of being deprived of the fruits produced by the land for the entire period during which the exchange contract was refused. For this reason, he claimed damages for the loss of profit caused by the lack of use of the land covered by the exchange contract.
The HCCJ held that the prescription period for bringing such a claim starts to run from the date of knowledge of the damage, which presupposes not only mere knowledge of the existence of the damage but also the real possibility for the injured party to determine its extent.
For this reason, it was established that the date from which the prescription period began to run was the date on which the exchange contract was concluded, when the exact location of the land was determined.
(link)