Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on Measures to Improve the Efficiency of the Public Justice Service

Introduction: Context and Objectives

On 3 January 2025, the Official State Gazette announced the publication of Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service (“the Law”).

The Law emerges in a context of increasing complexity in social and economic relations, accompanied by a rise in litigation, necessitating a more efficient reorganisation of the justice system. Moreover, technological advancements and improvements in transport infrastructure have rendered the traditional single-judge court model obsolete, exposing dysfunctions such as a lack of specialisation, duplication of competencies, and inefficiencies in case management.

These structural deficiencies, coupled with a lack of efficiency in previous solutions, have exacerbated chronic issues within the judicial system.

Therefore, this Law stands as a solution to address such inefficiencies, aiming to ensure efficient access to justice, consolidate citizens’ rights, and promote the digital modernisation of the judicial system to enhance its operability and response times.

About the Law

2.1 Scope of Application

A detailed analysis of the new regulation reveals its impact on the main legislative pillars of our legal system. Specifically:

  • It amends Organic Law 6/1985, of 1 July, on the Judiciary, and Law 38/1988, of 28 December, on Judicial Demarcation and Structure, introducing the following changes:
    • A reorganised judicial hierarchy is established, spanning from the Supreme Court to Peace Judges, including the High Courts of Justice, Provincial Courts, and Courts of First Instance, with the aim of improving case distribution and system efficiency.
    • Single-judge courts are replaced by collegiate courts of first instance, operating under the coordination of the Judicial Office, with a Central Court of First Instance in Madrid for national coordination.
    • Former Peace Courts are replaced by autonomous Justice Offices, providing administrative and procedural services to citizens in each municipality with adequate resources.
    • The Judicial Office is reorganised with common services for case processing and a regulated internal structure to enhance coordination.
  • Amendments to Law 1/2000, of 7 January, on Civil Procedure:
    • Acceleration of Civil Procedure through the introduction of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and reconfiguration of the oral trial, allowing for oral judgments.
  • Amendments to Law 15/2015, of 2 July, on Voluntary Jurisdiction:
    • Streamlined processes by centralising territorial judicial competence in inheritance cases involving minors or disabled individuals to simplify proceedings.
  • Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law:
    • Adaptation of criminal procedures to current needs by limiting online complaints and prioritising cases involving minors, alongside the introduction of restorative justice.
  • Amendments to Law 29/1998, of 13 July, regulating Administrative Jurisdiction:
    • Procedural streamlining through discretionary hearings and the possibility of oral judgments.
  • Amendments to Law 36/2011, of 10 October, regulating Social Jurisdiction:
    • Improvements in labour processes by allowing oral judgments, promoting conciliation, and reformulating the cassation appeal to unify legal doctrine.

2.2 Entry into Force

Generally, the Law will come into effect three months after its publication in the Official State Gazette (BOE), i.e., on 3 April 2025. However, certain provisions will take effect on 23 January 2025, while others will do so on 3 October 2025.

Key Procedural Innovations

As a firm specialising in dispute resolution, we present the amendments introduced in our procedural laws. Notably, the Civil Procedure Law has undergone the most significant reforms under this Law. Below are the most substantial changes, with a detailed breakdown in Appendix I.

3.1 ADR Mechanisms:

  • Parties may opt for any alternative dispute resolution mechanism at various stages, except when deliberation, voting, and sentencing dates in cassation appeals have been set.
  • Judges or the Judicial Administration Lawyer may propose mediation or other methods at any point, provided the parties explicitly agree.
  • Claims must be accompanied by documents proving prior negotiation attempts or, alternatively, a statement justifying why such attempts were not feasible.
  • Suspension of judgment enforcement is permitted to allow mediation or alternative resolution processes.
  • Amendments have been made regarding precautionary measures in contexts involving ADR, arbitration, or international litigation.
  • Sanctions are introduced for unjustified refusal to engage in mandatory ADR mechanisms, addressing abuse of the public justice service.

3.2 Procedural Streamlining in Oral Trials:

  • Judges may decide against holding hearings based on their assessment of evidence requests, even if requested by parties.
  • Defendants must challenge the trial amount in their defence statement, with the court resolving this during the process outlined in Article 438.10 of the Civil Procedure Law.
  • Judges are authorised to deliver oral judgments in oral trials, which will be recorded for formalisation.
  • Clarifications are provided regarding the res judicata effects in eviction cases combined with claims for rent or similar payments.

Reflection

This legislative reform is a step towards modernising the justice system but raises concerns over its execution. While expanding the competence of Violence against Women Sections and creating specialised sections strengthens protection for vulnerable groups, effective impact depends on resource allocation and specialised training.

The introduction of preliminary hearings and oral judgments aims to streamline procedures. However, eliminating certain steps and concentrating decisions early may compromise procedural safeguards in complex cases, where fundamental rights are at stake.

Moreover, promoting ADR and restorative justice aligns with global trends towards de-judicialisation. Yet, without effective implementation measures, these mechanisms may become mere bureaucratic hurdles.

Although reforms aim to prevent secondary victimisation and reduce procedural redundancies, it remains essential to ensure these measures do not oversimplify investigations or undermine judicial quality.

Finally, without clear financial commitment, these reforms risk remaining unfulfilled intentions. Judicial modernisation requires significant investment beyond political will.

In sum, the true measure of efficiency lies not in the number of laws passed but in their capacity to effect meaningful change.

Please find attached a PDF with the appendices.

Skip to content