Legislative Reform: Impact of Organic Law 1/2025 on the Social Jurisdiction
In line with our previous publications, in which we highlight significant legislative developments introduced by the recent Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, it is of particular interest to examine the amendments made by this Organic Law through Article 24 to Law 36/2011, of 10 October, regulating the Social Jurisdiction (hereinafter, the “Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction”).
The aforementioned Article 24 amends Article 82 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction in its fifth paragraph.
“The summons shall also require prior disclosure between the parties or advance submission, at least ten days before the trial, of any documentary or expert evidence they intend to rely upon. Evidence must be submitted in electronic format, except where the party is not required to communicate electronically with the Administration of Justice, in which case paper or other non-digital formats shall be accepted.”
Contradiction with Article 94.1 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction
This prior requirement to disclose documentary or expert evidence ten (10) days before the hearing gives rise to a clear contradiction with the provisions of Article 94.1 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction, which states:
“Documentary evidence submitted, which must be properly presented, ordered and paginated, shall be handed over to the parties during the hearing, for their examination.”
This normative conflict creates legal uncertainty and has sparked a wide-ranging debate regarding the applicability of these two provisions.
Application of the Principle of Legislative Speciality
In this regard, several commentators have put forward a pertinent point of view, maintaining that Article 94.1 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction should take precedence, as it is a specific provision set out in Section 3 “On Evidence”; whereas Article 82.5, which falls within Section 1 “On Claims”, is far more generic in nature.
It is the principle of legislative speciality which logically underpins this argument, a principle that has been recognised by the case law of the Supreme Court as a general principle of law, a criterion already established by the Supreme Court Judgment of 16 January 1998 (RJ 1998/826).
Having set out the issues arising from the conflict between Articles 82.5 and 94.1, a number of questions must be raised in this regard:
Potential Advantages of the Reform: Greater Procedural Agility
On the one hand, the new requirement for advance disclosure of documentary evidence at least ten (10) days prior to trial, as set out in Article 82.5, offers the potential to streamline proceedings and, in practice, to encourage the resolution of disputes through settlement between the parties.
This is due to the elimination of the so-called “element of surprise” inherent in the in voce nature of labour proceedings, and by granting both parties earlier access to the relevant information, they are afforded more time to consider it, negotiate, and discuss matters in greater detail—potentially enabling them to reach a settlement prior to the hearing date.
Risks of Breaching Article 94.1: Concentration and Immediacy Principles
However, non-compliance with Article 94.1 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction—by failing to disclose documentary evidence during the hearing for its examination—raises several important concerns:
Excluding the examination of evidence from the trial itself amounts to a breach of the principle of concentration, which governs labour proceedings. In accordance with Article 74 of the Law Regulating the Social Jurisdiction, the first paragraph provides:
“Judges and courts within the social jurisdictional order (…) shall interpret and apply the rules governing ordinary social proceedings in accordance with the principles of immediacy, orality, concentration, and promptness.”
Moreover, it may give rise to a potential infringement of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution.
Legal Uncertainty and Strategic Dilemmas for the Parties
In light of the above, the contradiction arising from the recent amendment to Article 82.5, and the resulting legal uncertainty, is self-evident. This scenario leaves parties in a state of uncertainty, forcing them to choose between:
-
serving the evidence at the hearing itself (in line with Article 94.1); or
-
disclosing it ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing date, as required by the amended Article 82.5.
In any case, what is clear is that the burden now lies on the parties until such time as this issue is resolved. They must carefully justify whichever course of action they choose, and risk the inadmissibility of any evidence produced during the hearing for failure to comply with the new advance disclosure requirement.
Looking Ahead: Need for Judicial Interpretation
This legal uncertainty, coupled with the recent approval of Organic Law 1/2025, means we must await judicial interpretation in this area, as well as see how it develops in practical legal proceedings.
End of the “Surprise Effect”? Possible Aims of the Reform
Ultimately, all these legislative amendments may aim to:
-
Eliminate the “surprise element” that has traditionally characterised social jurisdiction proceedings; or
-
Encourage a higher number of settlements, since the parties will know in advance what evidence and arguments their opponent will present at trial.
Time will tell. What is clear, however, is that it is reasonable to suggest a correlation between these changes and the overload faced by many courts across the country.
