In this information alert, we provide a summary of several recent judicial rulings that address key issues in the labour field. These decisions, issued by between April and May 2025, the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Justice of Catalonia and Castile and León (Valladolid) will address matters such as the legality of various clauses within a remote working agreement, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals, and the possibility of awarding compensation in addition to the statutory amount for unfair dismissal. These judgments will delineate significant implications for both companies and employees, as well as the current interpretations of the labour laws in force in Spain. 

Recent Jurisprudencial developments

Supreme Court Judgment of 2 April 2025 (Appeal No. 169/2022)

In this judgment, the Supreme Court rules again on the legality of certain clauses included in remote working agreements imposed by companies as non-negotiated contracts, given that they are not subject to individual negotiation. Accordingly, after analysing the content of the standard remote working agreement, it establishes the following: (i) the company may refer to the relevant sectoral collective agreement for the compensation of expenses arising from remote work, but if said regulation makes no provision in this respect, this does not relieve the company of its obligation to compensate for such expenses; (ii) the company may request that the employee provide their personal telephone number and email address to be contacted in the event of emergencies during the remote provision of services, as this may be necessary for the performance of the employment contract; (iii) exceptions to the right to disconnect cannot be established by the company in the contract itself; rather, a policy must first be drafted by the company following consultation with the employees' legal representatives; (iv) it is not valid to limit an employee's right to revert to in-person work by requiring justification based on specific causes listed in the remote working agreement; (v) it is valid to use the corporation tax depreciation coefficient tables, published by the Ministry of Finance, to determine the useful life of the equipment provided to the employee, as this is an objective parameter; (vi) it is valid to require the employee to maintain the equipment provided for the remote provision of services, and the company may pass on the cost of any repairs to the employee in the event of misuse of said equipment; (vii) it is valid to deduct the value of the company equipment provided to the employee from their final settlement if such equipment is not returned; and (viii) it is lawful to require employees to be reachable during the provision of services under a remote working arrangement.

Supreme Court Judgment of 9 April 2025 (Appeal No. 155/2023)

The Supreme Court resolves a collective dispute concerning the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Social Courts of Oviedo versus the Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Asturias. The case involves employees represented in the collective dispute who have an assigned work centre but whose place of service provision is not limited to the locality of said work centre; instead, they travel to different locations within the Principality of Asturias to repair specific faults. In response to this dispute, the Supreme Court declares that where a fixed, assigned work centre exists, subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the social courts competent to resolve disputes arising in the locality where the assigned work centre is based. This jurisdiction is not affected by the fact that the employees travel to other territories to provide their services. To interpret otherwise would mean, by way of example, that all collective disputes affecting pilots, sales representatives, or transport workers who travel to other autonomous communities in the course of their duties would fall under the jurisdiction of the National High Court. The key lies in determining the territorial scope of the effects of the dispute at hand. In the case adjudicated, it is held that this scope does not extend beyond the judicial district of the Social Courts of Oviedo, where the work centre is located.

Supreme Court Judgment of 7 may 2025 (Appeal No. 101/2024)

In an ordinary appeal arising from a claim challenging an administrative act, the Supreme Court rules on the possibility of forming an ad hoc committee to negotiate an Equality Plan following a lack of response from the most representative trade unions. The Chamber reiterates that, in accordance with Article 5.3 of Royal Decree 901/2020 and the established doctrine of the Supreme Court, the negotiation of an Equality Plan must be conducted with the employees' legal representatives, with the negotiating committee being formed under the legally established terms, and it cannot be substituted by an ad hoc committee. Only in very exceptional circumstances (such as a repeated negotiating deadlock attributable to the other party, a refusal to negotiate, or the absence of representative bodies) could it be accepted for the Company to establish the Equality Plan by forming an ad hoc negotiating committee, and even then, it would be considered provisional. In the specific case, the company gave the CCOO and UGT unions, in their capacity as the most representative trade unions, a period of ten days to form the negotiating committee for the equality plan. However, faced with a lack of response and given the absence of legal or unified employee representation within the company, it proceeded unilaterally with the drafting of the plan through an ad hoc committee of employees. Therefore, the Supreme Court upholds the appeal lodged by the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, confirming the refusal to register the Equality Plan, given that the company's unilateral action was not lawful, as no exceptional situation of negotiating deadlock was present. The Supreme Court reiterates that difficulties in agreeing upon the Plan do not justify its approval outside the prescribed channels; it is possible to resort to both judicial and extra-judicial means of dispute resolution to demand that negotiations be conducted in good faith.

Judgment of the High of Justice of Castille and León (Valladolid) of 8 April 2025 (Appeal No. 334/2025)

The Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Castile and León (Valladolid Seat) resolves an appeal lodged by a company against a judgment at first instance which had declared null and void a company policy that established notice periods and justification requirements for the enjoyment of each of the leaves and licences provided for in the applicable collective agreement. The lower court had found this to be a substantial modification of working conditions for which the legally established procedure had not been followed, as well as being contrary to the provisions of the applicable collective agreement. In response to said appeal, the High Court declares that the establishment of notice periods and justification requirements for the enjoyment of the leaves and licences provided for in the applicable collective agreement is not contrary to the said collective regulation nor to the Workers' Statute. The court reasons that it is a mere specification of the notice and justification requirements already mandated in said regulations. Furthermore, it does not constitute a substantial modification of working conditions, but rather an ordinary exercise of the company's managerial prerogative. Therefore, the company policy is deemed valid.

Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia of 8 April 2025 (Appeal No. 5578/2024)

In this judgment, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia acknowledges the possibility of awarding additional compensation for unfair dismissal beyond that which is established in Article 56 of the Workers' Statute (ET). Specifically, the Social Court of Tortosa had declared the dismissal of an employee to be unfair, ordering the company to pay him €441.35 (the statutory compensation set by Art. 56 ET), from which the amount of €99.70 already received as an end-of-contract payment was to be deducted. It dismissed the claim for supplementary compensation requested by the employee, which is the subject of the present appeal, lodged based on Article 10 of ILO Convention 158 and Article 24 of the Revised European Social Charter (RESC). In response to the employee's appeal, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia rejects the supplementary compensation sought, due to the absence of any damages to be compensated (which were not even minimally specified by the employee), also considering that the employment relationship was envisaged as being of a short duration from the outset. Therefore, in the specific case adjudicated, the additional compensation was not justified. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes the direct applicability of the RESC and, consequently, the possibility that in cases where damages are caused by an unjustified dismissal—which must be proven by the employee—additional compensation may be awarded. Such compensation would be in addition to the amount legally capped in the statutory text and would be adequate to redress the damage caused to the employee and act as a deterrent to the employer. A ruling from the Supreme Court on this matter is expected next July. 

In this information alert, we provide a summary of several recent judicial rulings that address key issues in the labour field. These decisions, issued by the Supreme Court and the National Court between January and April 2025, cover topics such as the legality of a strike triggered by the dismissal of a worker, the inclusion of holiday work compensation in holiday pay, the right to stock options in cases of unfair dismissal, and points of interest in collective dismissal matters. Through these rulings, significant implications are outlined for companies and workers, as well as current interpretations of the labour regulations in force in Spain. Moreover, a brief reference is made to the new Law 2/2025, dated 29 April, which amends the termination of employment contracts due to permanent disability.

Recent Jurisprudential Developments

Supreme Court Judgment of 12 March 2025 (Appeal No. 82/2023)

Supreme Court Judgment 1149/2025 addresses a collective dispute filed by the Federation of Services, Mobility and Consumption of UGT against the company Global Sales Solutions Line, S.L., concerning the obligation to include the “holiday hour bonus” in the calculation of holiday pay, as provided in Article 50 of the Second State Collective Agreement for the Contact Centre Sector (currently Article 52 of the Third State Collective Agreement for the Contact Centre Sector). The controversy stems from the company's practice of excluding this bonus from the calculation of holiday pay. The aforementioned conventional article states that “(t)he persons affected by this Agreement shall receive, as remuneration for their annual holidays, the average of what they have received for the holiday, special holiday, Sunday, night shift, and language bonuses indicated in the Agreement, as well as commissions for sales and/or variable production incentives, of an ordinary nature, based on the activity carried out derived from the performance of their job.”

The National Court upheld the claim and recognised the workers' right to include the aforementioned concept in the average remuneration that serves as the basis for holiday pay. The Supreme Court holds that, regardless of the system for compensating work done on holidays, whether it is paid through the specific holiday bonus provided in the collective agreement when compensated with a day off or through the increment provided for overtime hours when not compensated with a day off, according to the options established in the applicable collective agreement, in both cases, effective work on holidays is being remunerated. Therefore, both modalities must receive the same treatment in the calculation of holiday pay, in accordance with Article 50 of the collective agreement. Consequently, it is determined that excluding the “holiday hour bonus” from the calculation of holiday pay, even if paid through the overtime bonus, violates the provisions of the collective agreement, and confirms the National Court's ruling, declaring the affected workers' right to receive the corresponding amount for this bonus during their holidays.

Supreme Court Judgment of 26 March 2025 (Appeal No. 16/2023)

The Supreme Court judgment addresses the appeal filed by Grupo Itevelesa SLU against the ruling issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León on 14 September 2022. The judgment focuses on the collective dispute regarding the legality of the strike called by the Intercentres Committee. The strike was organised in response to the dismissal of a worker, deemed arbitrary, and due to other working conditions affecting the entire workforce (non-coverage of holidays and IT periods, inspection pace, work permits, warnings and sanctions, among others). The high Court evaluates the legality of the strike, emphasising that it is not a solidarity strike for the dismissal of the worker but responds to a real professional interest for the rest of the workers, affecting the collective interest of the workforce, thus complying with the provisions of Article 11.1.b) of RD 17/1977, dated 4 March. The judgment concludes that the dismissal of the worker is framed within a broader context of labour conflict, directly affecting the professional interest of workers in defending their jobs and working conditions, with prior claims to such effects. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determines that it was not necessary to make a second mediation attempt for the different phases of the strike, as it was a single conflict. It argues that, although the strike was conducted "intermittently," the appellant company never claimed that the strike modality was abusive or illegal.

Supreme Court Judgment of 9 April 2025 (Appeal No. 3654/2022)

In this judgment, the Supreme Court assesses whether a worker (their heirs in this case) has the right to obtain company shares derived from a stock option plan or its equivalent in cash, after being dismissed before the end of the vesting period for acquiring the shares. The debated issue, therefore, is whether the requirement in stock option plans that the worker must be employed by the company throughout the vesting period to consolidate the right to receive is enforceable and valid in cases where the worker's dismissal has been declared unfair. The stock options analysed by the Supreme Court conditioned vesting on remaining with the company for approximately 4 years, not linked to achieving objectives.

The stock option plan provided for the expiry of the grant in cases where the employment relationship ended during the consolidation period, except in some situations (such as retirement, corporate transaction, or death). The worker was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on 21.12.2017, 5 months before the end of the first vesting period and 20 months before the end of the second vesting period of the shares. This dismissal was classified as unfair by the judicial bodies, a matter that, according to the Supreme Court, cannot be ignored in this case. This termination occurs before the corresponding vesting periods of the concerned shares, a circumstance that requires examining whether there is an exception to the consolidation derived from a termination beyond the worker's control. And the Supreme Court gives an affirmative answer. It understands that this dismissal sought to prevent the worker from opting for the shares whose vesting period ended in 5 months. Furthermore, for the shares vesting in the 20 months following the dismissal, the Supreme Court assesses the indeterminacy of the vesting period itself -the reference is approximately four years, without further specification- announced by the programme and considers that the unfair dismissal should be added to the causes for which maintaining the employment relationship throughout the vesting period was not required (retirement, corporate transaction, etc.). All this, by virtue of Article 1256 of the Civil Code, which states that “the validity and fulfilment of contracts cannot be left to the discretion of one of the contracting parties.”

National High Court Judgment of 21 January 2025 (Appeal No. 232/2024)

This Judgment resolves a case of challenging a collective dismissal affecting 408 workers, promoted by the Workers' Representative Commission and the CGT union against the companies STUART DELIVERY S.L., STUART URBAN S.L. (the two companies promoting the collective dismissal as a labour group) and other companies of the STUART group, as well as against the companies of the MUTARES and GEOPOST S.A. group. The Judgment meticulously analyses each of the grounds for challenge presented by the claimants. 

Regarding the CGT's standing, which was questioned by the defendant companies, the Court accepted its standing to challenge the collective dismissal since the union demonstrated sufficient representation in at least one of the affected centres and in any case exceeding the 2 percent admitted as sufficient in the STS of 20-7-2016, complying with the provisions of Article 124.1 LRJS. Regarding the challenge to the dismissals of couriers with self-employed worker contracts, the Court upholds the exception of procedural inadequacy, considering that the nature of their contractual relationship should be determined in individual or plural proceedings and not in this collective dismissal challenge procedure. The doctrine excludes the collective dismissal procedural modality as suitable when examining the fraudulent nature of contracts requires attention to the particular characteristics of each one and their particular evolution throughout the contract's life, as happens in the case under review. Regarding the possible joint liability of the other defendant companies, different from those promoting the collective dismissal as a labour group, the lack of passive standing is upheld, considering that they did not form a “pathological group.” Therefore, they could not have the status of employers of the workers affected by the collective dismissal. 

Regarding the Stuart Group, regardless of whether there may be common policies or services to all the companies in the group, according to the Court, there is no indication of concealment or fraud aimed at harming workers' rights. Finally, regarding the breach of the Sixth Additional Provision of RD 1483/2012, introduced by Royal Decree 608/2023 (which requires notifying the labour authority and the Ministry of Labour six months in advance of the closure of centres, when it involves the definitive cessation of activity and the dismissal of 50 or more workers), the Court considers that the absence of this notification in due time and form is not a cause for nullity of the collective dismissal, as it is not included as such in Article 124.11 LRJS, reinforcing, therefore, that the grounds for nullity of the collective dismissal are limited. And this, without prejudice to the responsibilities the company may incur with the Labour Authority for omitting it. The judgment concludes that the companies complied with the legal requirements, the reasons for dismissal were real, and there was no violation of labour rights, dismissing the claim and declaring the collective dismissal lawful.

Legislative Developments

Law 2/2025: Modification of Termination of Employment Contracts due to Permanent Disability

On 30 April 2025, Law 2/2025, dated 29 April, concerning the legal regime for the termination of employment contracts in cases of permanent disability, was published. The statute, which came into force on 1 May 2025, positively regulates a matter on which the Court of Justice of the European Union had already ruled in its Judgment of 18 January 2024 (Case Ca Na Negreta), along with various judicial decisions from Spanish courts. The current Article 49.1 of the Workers' Statute (hereinafter, WS) is updated by adding subsection n), eliminating the automatic termination of the employment contract due to a declaration of severe disability, absolute permanent disability, or total permanent disability.

According to the new provisions of the WS, such termination is subject to the following conditions:

1. When it is not possible to make reasonable adjustments, as they would impose an excessive burden on the company. 

   The determination of what constitutes an excessive burden will, in our opinion, generate conflict, as the statute addresses this in generic terms. Specifically, it indicates that particular consideration will be given to the cost of adaptation measures in relation to the size, economic resources, economic situation, and total turnover of the company. The burden will not be considered excessive when sufficiently mitigated by public measures, aids, or subsidies. Objective cost criteria are specified for companies with fewer than 25 employees (the burden will be considered excessive when the cost of adapting the workplace, excluding the portion that may be covered by public aids or subsidies, exceeds the greater of the following amounts: i. The severance pay for unfair dismissal to which the employee would be entitled; ii. 6 months' salary).

   2. When there is no vacant position that matches the professional profile and is compatible with the employee's new situation.

   3. Express opposition from the employee to accept the proposed job change.

Regarding deadlines and procedures to follow, the employee has a period of 10 calendar days, starting from the notification of the INSS resolution recognising permanent disability, to inform the company in writing of their intention to maintain the employment relationship. The company has a maximum period of 3 months, counted from the date it is notified of the resolution qualifying the permanent disability, to make reasonable adjustments or change the job position. When the adjustment imposes an excessive burden or there is no vacant position, the company has the same period to proceed with the termination of the contract. The decision must be justified and communicated in writing to the employee.

It is important to highlight the significant role played by prevention services and occupational risk prevention delegates. Specifically, the statute establishes that prevention services will determine, in accordance with applicable regulations and after consultation with the employee representatives in matters of occupational risk prevention, the scope and characteristics of adjustment measures, including those related to training, information, and health surveillance of the employee, and will identify job positions compatible with the employee's new situation.

Article 48.2 of the WS is also adapted to include that the suspension of the employment relationship, with reservation of the job position, will be considered to continue during the time reasonable adjustments or the change to a vacant and available position are being resolved.

Furthermore, Article 174.5 of the LGSS is adapted so that if the employee continues in the company after the adjustments or job change, the permanent disability pension is suspended, unless it involves an activity compatible as provided in Article 198 of the aforementioned legal text.

Finally, in the procedural realm, Article 120 of the LRJS is amended so that judicial challenges arising from the termination under Article 49.1 n) of the WS will be processed urgently and preferentially.

In this legal update, we provide a summary of several recent court rulings addressing key issues in the field of labour law. These decisions, handed down by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice of Catalonia between February and March 2025, cover matters such as the retroactive application of a new collective bargaining agreement that modifies the dual salary scale established in the previous one; the obligation to respect the agreed percentage of on-site work and to cover teleworking expenses; the nullity of dismissals due to non-compliance with business succession rules; and the validity of objective dismissal due to supervening ineptitude when the position cannot be reasonably adapted.

These judgments provide important implications for employers and employees alike, while also reflecting the current interpretation of labour regulations in Spain. Additionally, we highlight new developments in temporary employment introduced by Law 1/2025 of 1 April, on the Prevention of Food Loss and Waste.

Recent jurisprudential developments

Supreme Court Judgment of 25 February 2025 (Appeal No. 4491/2022)

This ruling analyses the potential partial nullity of Article 49 of the collective bargaining agreement applicable to a company in the glass manufacturing sector. The article establishes a performance-based bonus linked to productivity and quality results achieved at different work centres, taking into account monthly individual absences of employees, excluding holidays, working time differences, union leave, and bereavement leave.

The CGT union filed a claim contesting this incentive system, which was upheld by the National Court. The Court declared the nullity of Article 49 insofar as it individualized the bonus according to each employee’s absences. As a result, all employees were deemed entitled to 100% of the bonus allocated to their work centre, regardless of the reasons for their absences.

The Supreme Court upheld the company’s appeal and overturned the National Court's judgment. While it did not declare the provision null, the Court introduced significant qualifications concerning its practical application, raising questions about its effectiveness and suitability. The Court acknowledged that combating absenteeism is a legitimate objective but emphasized that it must be pursued in compliance with the Constitution, the Comprehensive Law 15/2022 on Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination, and Organic Law 3/2007 on the Effective Equality of Women and Men.

Therefore, absences related to illness, work-life balance measures, or those that could lead to associative discrimination—such as caregiving leave—must not be counted. However, unjustified absences or those linked to non-discriminatory leave (e.g. relocation or attending exams) may be considered.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the clause is not null per se, as setting a bonus to reduce unjustified absenteeism is lawful. However, it must be interpreted in a way that excludes protected absences under Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution and its implementing laws.

Supreme Court Judgment of 4 March 2025 (Appeal No. 56/2023)

This case concerns a collective dispute filed by the Independent Energy Union (SIE) against the Endesa Group regarding several clauses of an individual telework agreement arising from a collective agreement with CCOO. The Supreme Court, ruling on ordinary appeal, dismissed the appeals against the National Court’s decision, thereby upholding it.

The Court first found that a clause preventing employees from substituting or accumulating telework days when the company mandates in-office presence infringes Article 8.1 of the Remote Work Act (Law 10/2021), as it would allow the employer to unilaterally alter the agreed remote work percentage.

Second, the Court ruled that a clause excluding compensation for teleworking expenses violates the employee’s right to reimbursement, as recognised in Articles 7(b) and 12 of the Remote Work Act.

Lastly, the Court upheld the employer’s right to require in-person attendance without minimum notice, based on the nature of the service. Although the union sought the application of notice periods established in the Workers’ Statute and the group’s collective bargaining agreement for irregular workday distribution, temporary relocations, additional hours, or flexible time recovery, the Supreme Court concluded that no analogy could be drawn. The teleworking policy already stipulates that any required changes must be communicated “with the maximum possible notice.”

Supreme Court Judgment of 5 March 2025 (Appeal No. 4728/2023)

This judgment addresses a labour dispute arising from a change of concessionaire in the management of the Caminito del Rey site and the related obligation to subrogate employees affected by a collective redundancy initiated by the outgoing contractor.

The outgoing company, part of a joint venture (UTE), dismissed several employees via a collective redundancy process due to the loss of the contract. Shortly thereafter, another UTE took over and hired 11 of the previously dismissed employees, later incorporating three more.

The issue was whether the loss of a service contract constitutes sufficient grounds to terminate employment for productive reasons and thereby exempt the incoming contractor from the obligation to subrogate employees. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not.

The Court held that there was, in fact, a transfer of undertaking, as the activity was labour-intensive and the incoming contractor hired a substantial portion of the previous staff. It confirmed the lower court’s decision, which found the dismissals to be unfair under Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute and the EU Directive on business transfers, and held the new concessionaire liable, exonerating the outgoing company.

High Court of Justice of Catalonia Judgment of 7 February 2025 (Appeal No. 3687/2024)

This case concerns a dental clinic assistant whose employment contract was terminated for objective reasons due to supervening ineptitude, under Article 52(a) of the Workers’ Statute, following a period of temporary disability.

The employee claimed the dismissal was unfair, arguing that the employer had failed to make reasonable accommodations for her physical limitations, in breach of national and international legislation, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and EU case law.

The Court acknowledged the employer’s duty to ensure the employee’s health and safety through reasonable adjustments but clarified that such an obligation is not unlimited and must be balanced against the employer’s operational capacity. Given the small size of the dental clinic, the lack of suitable vacancies, and the failure of relocation attempts, the dismissal was deemed justified.

Legislative Developments

Law 1/2025 of 1 April on the Prevention of Food Loss and Waste (Official Gazette 2.4.2025) (Official Gazette 2.4.2025)  

This legislation amends, with retroactive effect from 2 January 2025, paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Workers’ Statute. It introduces significant changes to the use of temporary contracts due to production-related circumstances in the agricultural and agri-food sectors.

Specifically, (i) it recognises agricultural, livestock, and forestry campaigns as valid causal justification for such contracts; and (ii) extends their maximum duration to 120 calendar days per year, compared to the general limit of 90 days, regardless of the number of employees required on any given day. These specific situations must be clearly detailed in the contract.

These days may not be consecutive, and companies are required to submit an annual forecast of their intended use of such contracts to employee representatives during the last quarter of each year.

On 26 March, Decree Laws 5/2025 and 6/2025 were published in the DOGC, introducing various tax modifications. The measures adopted aim to alleviate the difficulty of accessing housing and to strengthen the protection of victims of gender-based violence. Our Tax Law department has prepared this informational alert on the main modifications introduced by these regulations.

Access the full alert. 

After numerous reports regarding the increase in the property transfer tax on housing acquisitions by large holders, today the DOGC published Decree 2-2025, which adopts urgent measures in fiscal matters, personnel expenses, and other administrative areas. Our real estate law team has prepared this informational alert, detailing the new tax rates and allowances established in the Decree Law.

Access the full alert. 

On 6 March 2025, the Official Gazette of the Generalitat of Catalonia No. 9365 published Decree-Law 3/2025, of 4 March, adopting urgent measures in the field of public procurement, which comes into force on 7 March 2025 and must be ratified by the Parliament within 30 days.

This regulation aims to improve the quality of public procurement by Catalan administrations, facilitating the access of SMEs to award procedures and adopting measures to accelerate the execution of public works and facilitate the construction of public housing.

Access the full alert. 
 

On 17 February 2025, the BOE published the admission for processing by the Constitutional Court of two issues of unconstitutionality related to the system of instalment payments of the Corporate Tax, affecting companies with a turnover equal to or greater than 10 million euros.

Our Tax Law department has prepared this information alert that delves into these issues, analysing their possible origins and explaining the process of compensation for damages in the event that unconstitutionality is declared.

Access the full alert.

David Vegara, Chairman of the Advisory Board of RocaJunyent, invites us to read his Economic Note. In it, he describes a dystopian reality marked by the re-election of Trump, who returns with more experience and clarity in his objectives, impacting international trade, fiscal policy, and European defence. The Trump administration, with a protectionist approach, could influence international trade and the fiscal policy of the United States, with possible effects on the trade deficit and inflation.

In Europe, Germany faces significant challenges, with economic stagnation since 2019 and manufacturing struggling to compete with China, especially in the electric vehicle sector. Recent elections reflect growing social unrest, with Alternative for Germany (AfD) gaining ground with an anti-immigration and anti-European discourse. Germany's economic transition will be long and complex, and its leadership is crucial for the European Union in this context.

On the other hand, the Spanish economy shows remarkable dynamism, with growth exceeding 3% in 2024, driven by immigration, the tourism sector, and an expansive fiscal policy. The high proportion of renewable energies has allowed for reduced dependence on imported sources, moderating the volatility of domestic prices. However, structural challenges persist, such as the low technological component of exports and a dysfunctional labour market. Additionally, the housing market presents significant imbalances that could generate social tensions.

Access the full Economic Note.

On 26 February 2025, Decree-Law 2/2025 of 25 February was published in the Official Gazette of the Generalitat of Catalonia (DOGC) and came into immediate effect. This decree introduces urgent measures in the field of housing and urban planning, significantly impacting the sale and purchase of real estate.

One of the main novelties is that the transfer of any dwelling located in an area declared as a stressed residential market, and owned by a large holder, is now subject to the right of first refusal and withdrawal by the Administration of the Generalitat.

Our real estate law team has prepared a detailed analysis of all the modifications introduced by this decree-law, available in the following information alert.

Access the full alert. 

Decree-Law 2/2025, of February 25, adopting urgent measures in matters of housing and urban planning, introduces significant innovations in various aspects of Catalan urban planning regulations.

This decree amends several legislative texts, including the Urban Planning Law and its regulations, addressing issues such as the promotion of public housing and the regulation of urban developments with planning deficits. Notably, it extends the expiration period for urban legality protection procedures to eighteen months, a significant change that, while not directly related to the main objective of the decree, has a considerable impact.

These measures and amendments, effective from February 27, are subject to ratification by the Parliament of Catalonia within a maximum period of 30 days.

Access the full alert.