The use of technological innovations in financial operations is identified as one of the main vulnerabilities in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing prevention, according to the Ministry of Economy. Therefore, it is important and relevant that FinTechs are fully aware of their status as obliged entities and comply with their responsibilities.

Compliance with these obligations ensures security and impacts the good reputation of companies; otherwise, they may face issues both due to substantial fines and the destruction of their good image, something that is very costly to achieve in the financial sector.

In this informational alert, prepared by our Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Department, we provide a comprehensive summary of the formal and material obligations that FinTechs must fulfil, alongside an analysis of the challenges they are likely to encounter in the future.

Access the full alert. 

Investment is fundamental for the development of business projects that are based on knowledge and technology. In this context, our partner Fede Segura and our associate Sergio Giménez, experts in the field of startups, have contributed their expertise in the chapter titled "Technology-Based Companies: Regulation, Characteristics, and Challenges of the 21st Century."

This chapter is part of the ebook "Investor Participation in Technological and Innovative Startups," a work edited by the Fundació Parc Científic Universitat de València, which brings together key specialists from the investor ecosystem. The contribution of our professionals stands out for its detailed analysis of the regulation and challenges faced by technology companies in the 21st century, providing a comprehensive and updated view of the sector.

You can consult the chapter at the following link.

Raúl Salas, Partner in Tax Law, Elena Ferrer-Sama, Head of the Tax Law Department, and Cristina Cavero, Tax Law Associate, have collaborated on the Chambers and Partners Corporate Tax 2025 guide. They have specifically prepared an analysis for Spain, focusing on key aspects of practice and providing tax insights that should be considered by any current or future investor in Spain.

You can view the full chapter at the following link.

In this informational alert, we provide a summary of several recent court judgments that address key issues in the labour field. These decisions, issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice of Madrid in January 2025, cover topics such as incentives to combat absenteeism, the scope of the duty of care in relation to liability for surcharge of benefits in cases of outsourcing activities, the applicable collective agreement in cases of subcontracting and the classification of dismissal during a period of temporary incapacity. These judgments outline significant implications for companies and workers, as well as current interpretations of the labour regulations in force in Spain.

Recent jurisprudential developments

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 20 January 2025 (appeal no. 99/2024)

The judgement examines the potential partial nullity of Article 49 of the collective bargaining agreement applicable to a company in the glass manufacturing sector. This article establishes an improvement incentive based on productivity and quality results obtained at various workplaces, taking into account individual absences recorded monthly for employees, excluding holidays, time differences, union leave and bereavement leave. The claim filed by the trade union CGT challenging this incentive was upheld by the National Court, which declared the nullity of Article 49 of the collective bargaining agreement concerning the individualisation of the bonus for each worker based on their absences from work. This annulment means that, regardless of the reason for the absence, all workers are entitled to 100% of the bonus amount applicable to the workplace.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal filed by the company and annulled the National Court’s judgement. The Supreme Court concluded that it was not appropriate to declare the nullity of the said conventional article, although it introduced significant qualifications in its practical application, raising questions about its usefulness and suitability. The Supreme Court considers that combating absenteeism is a legitimate cause aimed at addressing a serious problem. However, absenteeism must be combated without violating the Constitution, nor the Comprehensive Law 15/2022 for equal treatment and non-discrimination, nor the Organic Law 3/2007, of 22 March, for the effective equality of women and men.

This means that absences that can be counted for these purposes cannot be caused by illness, measures for reconciling family and work life, nor should they cause discrimination by association of the worker whose incentive is reduced for having used leave to care for the sick. Unjustified absences, as well as absences due to leave that do not constitute prohibited discrimination, may be counted. For example, absences due to a change of habitual residence or to attend exams could be counted for these purposes, as long as they do not cause discrimination.

Consequently, the Supreme Court rules that it is not appropriate to declare the nullity of the conventional provision, because it is lawful to establish a salary bonus to combat absenteeism that takes into account unjustified absences from work or those that do not constitute one of the discrimination factors, but rather to make an integrative interpretation of that conventional norm in which, by applying Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution and the laws that develop it, those absences are not counted.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 20 January 2025 (appeal no. 2396/2022)

A worker suffered a workplace accident on 6 November 2017 while carrying out forestry logging tasks, being struck by a log. The worker suffered severe injuries in the accident, resulting in total permanent incapacity. The incident occurred on a plot operated by the company Central Forestal SAU, but executed by a contracting company. Prior to his employment, the worker received specific training in occupational risk prevention and was declared “fit” in the medical health surveillance examination. The labour court sentenced both companies to jointly pay a surcharge of 40% on the worker’s economic benefits. This judgement was appealed by Central Forestal, SAU to the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, which decided to absolve Central Forestal, SAU from the surcharge, arguing that it had no control over the worker’s labour activity. In response to this decision, the worker filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine, seeking to determine whether Central Forestal, SAU (the main company) should be jointly liable for the surcharge on the economic benefits imposed on the contractor for failing to comply with safety measures. The Supreme Court confirms that the main company should not be considered responsible for the lack of safety measures, as the accident occurred at a site where there were no own workers nor was business coordination required. Under these circumstances, where the workplace accident occurs in a field where the main company has no personal or human resources, it is not possible to impose a benefit surcharge on the main company derived from the duty to monitor safety regulations at work. 

It concludes that, in this case, the responsibility for the benefit surcharge falls solely on the contracting company, the employer of the injured worker.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 28 January 2025 (appeal no. 45/2023)

A company applying a collective agreement in ultra-activity makes a substantial modification to the working conditions (SMWC) of a collective nature, which concludes with a majority agreement from the social party. Specifically, professional categories, holidays, remuneration, etc., which are provided for in the collective agreement in ultra-activity, are modified. Two of the unions that did not sign the SMWC agreement challenged it, arguing that the procedure for opting out (Article 82.3 of the Workers’ Statute (WS) should have been followed instead of the SMWC procedure (Article 41 WS). The High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha upheld the collective dispute claim at the initial stage. In ordinary cassation, the Supreme Court confirmed this judgement. The main grounds for cassation were: (i) that the collective agreement was non-statutory; (ii) that the agreement was in ultra-activity. The Supreme Court confirms that the agreement was statutory, and therefore the opting-out procedure should have been followed.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 29 January 2025 (appeal no. 202/2024)

The judgement examines whether a court ruling that declares a collective dismissal as unfair can also determine which collective agreement is applicable for calculating the severance payments of the dismissed workers. In the case analysed, the company had its own collective agreement with lower wages than the sectoral agreement, with the controversy centered on which of these agreements should be applied to calculate the severance payments. Initially, the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country considered that the severance payments should be based on the sectoral agreement. The company challenged this decision, arguing that its company agreement should be applied. Several applicable sectoral agreements had succeeded each other with significant gaps between the end of one and the signing of the next, which had led to periods without a sectoral agreement in force. During these intervals, company agreements were signed. It should be considered that, although the sixth transitional provision of Royal Decree-Law 32/2021, in force at the time of the collective dismissal in October 2023, eliminated the priority of company agreements regarding wages, the company agreement remained in force, applying the rule of priority in time. The application of Article 42.6 in relation to Article 84 of the Workers’ Statute implies that the company collective agreement has priority over the sectoral agreement when it precedes the subsequent concurrent collective norm in time.

Essentially, the Supreme Court determines that Article 84 of the Workers’ Statute allows for the negotiation of a company agreement in the absence of a sectoral agreement or when sectoral negotiation is not active, even if some of its conditions are inferior to those of the sectoral reference agreement, as is the case here. Therefore, it considers that the salary was as stipulated in the company collective agreement.

Judgement of the High Court of Justice of Madrid of 16 January 2025 (appeal no. 714/2024)

The High Court of Justice of Madrid declared the dismissal of a worker null, who, while on medical leave and in the days leading up to being dismissed, received a call from his superior, who acknowledged that he could not be dismissed due to his temporary incapacity and asked him to accept an agreement “amicably”. Although the labour court in Madrid declared the dismissal as unfair, the High Court confirms in appeal the violation of fundamental rights, understanding that, with reference to Article 55.5 of the Workers’ Statute, a dismissal motivated solely by the worker’s illness inevitably leads to a declaration of nullity.

Jurisprudential developments

Supreme Court Ruling of 20 November 2024 (appeal no. 2655/2023)

In this ruling, the Supreme Court examines compensation for damages in cases of pay discrimination resulting from the non-application of collective agreement improvements to temporary workers. On appeal, the High Court of Justice of Andalusia dismissed the company’s obligation to compensate for unpaid wage differences as lost profits, arguing that the claim for salary differences was time-barred. Contrary to this precedent, the Supreme Court considers that the right to equal pay, which prohibits lower wages due to temporary status, justifies compensation for both material and moral damages through the procedural modality of fundamental rights protection. For the Supreme Court, the choice of procedural modality is crucial in this case, as it allows the extension of the limitation period for salary claims to one year from the end of the discriminatory situation. Similarly, the ruling refers to the possibility of a joint award of compensation that includes both the remuneration not received (lost profits) and compensation for damages (moral damages).

Supreme Court Ruling of 11 December 2024 (appeal no. 41/2023)

The Supreme Court addresses the collective dispute filed by trade unions CC.OO. and UGT against Siemens Rail Automation, SAU. They sought a declaration of nullity, or alternatively, the unjustified nature of the company’s decision to stop paying workers the salary supplements associated with attending the workplace (meal subsidy and transport allowance) by including compensation for remote work. Firstly, the Court rules that the action challenging the substantial modification of working conditions has expired, as the 20 working-day period established by Article 138.1 of the Labour Jurisdiction Act begins to count from the day following the written notification by the company to its employees. This is regardless of whether the company followed the procedure of Article 41 of the Workers’ Statute. Secondly, it rules that Siemens has not violated Act 10/2021 on remote work, which aims to ensure that workers retain the most favourable conditions they enjoyed before the law came into effect. This is mainly because the changes made by the company occurred before the law came into force.

Supreme Court Ruling of 14 January 2025 (appeal no. 5248/2023)

The Supreme Court evaluates whether it is permissible to use CCTV cameras to confirm reasonable suspicions that a shop assistant has committed irregular acts. Specifically, the employee was dismissed for purchasing clothing items and subsequently refunding herself the purchase amount without returning the items. The Supreme Court holds that CCTV cameras can be used to verify the commission of a flagrantly unlawful act when, as in the case at hand, compliance with Article 89.1 of the Data Protection Act in relation to its Article 22.4 is ensured. This means that: (i) the cameras are visible; (ii) there is a notice indicating that recording is taking place, and (iii) the workers’ representatives are informed accordingly. Consequently, the ruling issued by the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, which had declared the dismissal of the employee null and void, is overturned.

Supreme Court Ruling of 14 January 2025 (appeal no. 1038/2023)

The Supreme Court rules that the shift allowance must be received in full even when an employee is on reduced working hours due to legal guardianship. In this case, the employee had a 50% reduction in working hours to care for her child under 12, but continued to work morning, afternoon and night shifts. The company appealed, arguing that the shift allowance should be proportional to the hours worked. However, the Supreme Court holds that the shift allowance compensates for the negative consequences of working shifts and is therefore not linked to the duration of the working day. Furthermore, the Court interprets the regulation with a gender perspective, noting that the majority of those who take reduced hours for legal guardianship are women. Ultimately, it confirms that in such cases, the shift allowance should be received in full, without proportional reduction.

High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands Ruling of 13 May 2024 (appeal no. 3/2022)

In this ruling, the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands addresses the timing of the obligation to initiate the consultation period for collective redundancies, applying the doctrine of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling of 22 February 2024 (C-598/22), in relation to Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies. In the case under consideration, the company Resorts Mallorca Hotels Internacional, SL faces organisational and productive difficulties that lead it to implement various restructuring measures. Specifically, the company decides to transfer the management of 13 of its 20 hotels, while simultaneously negotiating voluntary redundancies with 9 employees who will move to work for the transferee company. As a result of these decisions, the company maintains a central services staff of 32 people, of which 8 were dismissed for organisational and productive reasons. Considering the described framework, the Court, in light of the response given by the CJEU ruling of 22 February 2024 (C-598/22), concludes that the obligation to consult arises when the company, within a restructuring process, contemplates or plans a reduction in jobs that could exceed the established thresholds. In this regard, the Court considers that the company had already made strategic decisions aimed at avoiding contractual terminations, justifying the opening of the consultation process. For the Court, the purpose of this obligation is to prevent, reduce or mitigate the consequences of collective redundancies, so the consultation period should have begun with the adoption of the initial strategic restructuring measures, regardless of whether the numerical thresholds for collective redundancies were ultimately reached. In view of the above, the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands declares the terminations null and void for not having followed the proper procedural steps.

Legislative developments

Royal Decree-Law 1/2025, of 28 January, approving urgent measures in economic matters, transport, Social Security, and to address situations of vulnerability

This regulation reinstates some of the socio-labour measures that lapsed due to the non-validation of Royal Decree-Law 9/2024. Regarding the revaluation of pensions and other public benefits: (i) contributory pensions are generally increased by 2.8%, (ii) the maximum limit for the receipt of public pensions is set at 3,267.60 euros per month (45,746.40 euros annually), (iii) the supplement for reducing the gender gap is set at 35.90 euros per month, (iv) the minimum amount for old age and non-concurrent invalidity pensions of the Compulsory Elderly and Disability Insurance (SOVI) is set at 7,840.00 euros annually and at 7,610.40 euros annually if concurrent with other pensions, (v) the amount of non-contributory disability and retirement pensions is set at 7,905.80 euros, (vi) the amount for non-contributory Social Security family benefits, for a dependent child aged 18 or over with a disability degree greater than 65%, is set at 5,805.60 euros annually; the amount will be 8,707.20 euros annually if the disability is 75% or greater.

In terms of contribution regulations, these are extended with the following updates: (i) minimum contribution bases are increased by the same percentage as the minimum wage, increased by one-sixth; (ii) the base and maximum contribution cap will be set by applying the 2.8% corresponding to the pension revaluation, plus the 1.2% established by the 38th transitional provision of the General Social Security Act, totalling 4,909.50 euros per month; (iii) during the year 2025, the contribution rate for the Intergenerational Equity Mechanism (MEI) will be 0.80%, with 0.67% paid by the employer and 0.13% by the employee; (iv) an additional solidarity contribution applies exclusively to employees when their remuneration exceeds the maximum contribution base. Additionally, the obligation to maintain employment is extended for companies benefiting from contribution exemptions for workers affected by furlough schemes (ERTEs) from a minimum period of 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. Finally, the prohibition on dismissals for objective reasons linked to increased energy costs for companies receiving direct aid is extended until 31 December 2025.

News Bulletin Red 2/2025, published by the General Treasury of Social Security

It provides clarifications on the changes implemented in the new National Classification of Economic Activities (CNAE-2025) following the entry into force of Royal Decree 10/2025 on 16 January 2025. This regulation sets key deadlines for its implementation, highlighting the obligation for all economic units to report their economic activity coding according to CNAE-2025 between 1 March and 30 June 2025. Additionally, those already registered must comply with this obligation by 30 June 2025, while new responsible entities must report the coding at the time of their incorporation. During the transition period, they must continue using the coding according to CNAE-2009 until Social Security legislation is fully adapted to the new classification.

Developments in working time registration

On 4 February 2025, the Council of Ministers approved the Draft Bill for the reduction of the maximum duration of the ordinary working day, working time registration and the right to digital disconnection. The Draft Bill is based on a prior agreement reached between the Ministry of Labour, CC.OO. and UGT, without the involvement of the employers’ association. For the Draft Bill to come into effect, it must be approved by the Parliament.

If so, a new Article 34 bis will come into effect in the Workers’ Statute (WS), which will comprehensively and harmoniously regulate aspects related to working time registration, modifying the current Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute (in force since 12 May 2019). Additionally, the new Article 34 bis WS will include the regulation of working time registration in part-time contracts (Article 12.4.c) WS) and the registration of overtime hours (Article 35.5 WS).

In this way, the Workers’ Statute introduces the requirements of objectivity, reliability, and accessibility that were already required following the provisions of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Judgment of 14 May 2019 (Case C-55/18). Furthermore, the Draft Bill incorporates modifications to the currently applicable jurisprudential criteria.

The Labour Department of RocaJunyent has published a report with a detailed analysis of the “future” new regulation of working time registration, comparing it with the current Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute, as well as the most relevant judicial rulings and Technical Criterion 101/2019 regarding the actions of the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate in terms of working time registration.

The LMVSI extended the scope of application of the takeover regime of regulated markets to ‘those companies whose shares are, in whole or in part, admitted to trading [...] on an MTF’. The articles included several references to future regulatory development, and as a transitional solution until the entry into force of the new royal decree, it was established that ‘until the regulatory rules for the development of this law are issued, the current rules on securities markets and investment services will remain in force, as long as they do not oppose the provisions of this law’.

On 8 January 2025, the Draft Royal Decree amending Royal Decree 1066/2007, of 27 July, on the regime of takeover bids (Takeover Bid RD) was published for public hearing, with the purpose of regulating takeover bids of companies whose shares are admitted to trading on an MTF.

Access to the complete informative note

Silvia López, Real Estate partner at RocaJunyent, has participated in the chapter on Spain in the Terralex guide "The TerraLex Cross-Border Real Estate Guide". This comprehensive resource provides a concise overview of real estate laws across multiple jurisdictions, offering insights on land registration, taxation, leasing terms, construction regulations, investment vehicles, and more. Whether you’re navigating ownership processes, planning developments, or managing leases, this guide is an invaluable tool for professionals and investors involved in global real estate transactions.

Access to the chapter via this link