A new decision by Spain’s Supreme Court directly affects the rights of citizens involved in legal proceedings where the presence of a lawyer is mandatory. Now, if a defense attorney cannot attend a hearing for a valid reason supported by medical documentation, the court is required to reschedule the session. This rule is designed to prevent situations where parties are left without professional support at critical moments in the proceedings.
Previously, courts often demanded proof that the absence of a lawyer due to illness actually prevented a party from defending their interests. However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that the very fact that a defense attorney, whose presence is mandatory, is unable to attend, is in itself grounds for the hearing to be declared invalid. Exceptions are only possible if there are signs of abuse of rights, bad faith, or attempts to deliberately delay the process.
Ruling on a case from Marbella
A case involving a family from Marbella led to a review of this approach. The family was evicted from rented housing after the property was purchased by a large owner. Their lawyer informed the court on the eve of the hearing that he was ill and could not find a replacement, providing all the required documents. Nevertheless, both the court of first instance and the Malaga appellate court refused to postpone the session, deciding that the family’s written objections were sufficient to protect their interests.
The Supreme Court overturned these decisions, stating that the absence of a lawyer in such cases violates the fundamental rights of the party. The judges emphasized: if the law requires mandatory legal counsel, holding a hearing without one creates structural inequality and deprives the party of the ability to fully participate in proceedings. This is especially important in the initial stage of the case, when the subject of the dispute is determined and evidence is gathered.
Changes in the law and consequences
In 2023, amendments to Article 188.1.5º of the Civil Procedure Code simplified the process for postponing a hearing due to medical reasons. Now, it is sufficient to provide any document confirming the lawyer’s urgent illness, and final confirmation can be submitted later. The Supreme Court relies on these provisions, as well as Article 238 of the Organic Law on Judicial Power, which specifically highlights procedural violations caused by the absence of required legal counsel.
The judges note that after the 2003 reform, lawmakers introduced a separate ground for declaring a hearing invalid if it was held without a lawyer when legal counsel is mandatory. There is no need to prove that the party actually suffered harm— the mere fact of a procedural violation is enough to annul the ruling.
Judicial debate
The Supreme Court’s decision also included a separate opinion from one of the ten judges. He argued that in this particular case, the family did not suffer actual harm because they could have presented their arguments in writing. However, the majority of the judges determined that a formal approach does not sufficiently protect citizens’ rights, and that ensuring the opportunity for full defense at every stage of the proceedings should take priority.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the Malaga courts’ decisions and ordered the case to be returned to the stage before the request to postpone the hearing was denied. The judges acknowledged that this would prolong the proceedings, but emphasized that the right to a defense outweighs the plaintiff’s interest in a speedy resolution.
Context and similar cases
In recent years, Spanish courts have increasingly faced questions regarding the role of lawyers in proceedings. For instance, a recent case involved a lawyer who avoided penalties for using artificial intelligence that produced errors—the court took into account her apology and decided not to impose sanctions. This example, discussed in detail in the article on how courts approach AI errors, also shows how Spain’s judicial system is adapting to new challenges and revising practices to better protect participants’ rights.
Overall, Supreme Court rulings on mandatory attorney participation are shaping new judicial practices that impact all proceedings where legal representation is required. This affects not only eviction cases but also other types of disputes where parties risk being left without professional support. Further changes in case law related to the protection of citizens’ procedural rights are expected in the coming years.
