The decrease in unresolved cases in Spanish courts has become an unexpected signal for the entire country. This development affects millions of citizens, as the speed and efficiency of justice determine the resolution of disputes, protection of rights, and societal stability. According to El Pais, for the first time in the past decade, Spain has recorded a reduction in the court caseload, potentially changing the approach to case review and access to justice.
The overall volume of unresolved cases fell by 0.67%, with a 4.5% drop in civil courts. The Ministry of Justice attributes this outcome to the introduction of new tools such as Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), as well as the launch of courts of instance and the increase in the number of judges and prosecutors. However, not all members of the judicial system share the authorities’ optimism. Representatives of the Ilustre Colegio de la Abogacía de Madrid (ICAM) believe that the mandatory implementation of ADR has become an obstacle for many citizens, creating an additional barrier to accessing the courts.
Reforms and Their Consequences
The introduction of MASC coincided with a marked decrease in new cases—a 10% drop in the main categories, and a decline of up to 20.4% in civil and commercial disputes. The Ministry believes these measures were key to easing the burden on the courts. At the same time, ICAM warns that the new requirements may not only delay the resolution of disputes, but also create new processes related to compliance with procedures. The issue is particularly acute in family cases involving minors. As a result, ICAM, the prosecutors’ associations of Madrid and Barcelona, and the Association of Professional Court Secretaries (PROLAJ) have called for the abolition of mandatory mediation in family cases involving children.
The Ministry of Justice, for its part, claims that most of these cases were previously resolved through negotiation, and the new regulations merely formalized this approach. According to their estimates, in 60–80% of cases, the parties reached agreement without going to court. Authorities also note that in one year of MASC’s operation, it has managed to reduce so-called “artificial” judicial workload—cases for which the Supreme Court has already ruled, yet proceedings continue. Now, judges are more frequently invoking the concept of “abuse of the right to justice.”
Court transformation
At the same time, courts of instance have become fully operational in Spain, reshaping the structure of the judicial system. The traditional courts with a single judge and separate clerical offices have been replaced by collegial bodies where resources are allocated precisely where they are needed most. This approach has eliminated the need to establish new offices, which previously cost the state an average of 500,000 euros per structure. According to the Ministry’s estimates, this will save over 350 million euros in the coming years.
However, the transition to the new model required significant investment: in the current legislature alone, spending reached 1.121 billion euros, of which 850 million went to digitalization, 192 million to personnel—including new positions and salary increases—and another 79 million to refurbishing premises. Authorities emphasize that the reform was discussed for many years with regional governments and legal professionals, and it was based on the model of the judicial office introduced back in 2010.
Implementation challenges
Despite the reported progress, the launch of the courts of instance has faced criticism. The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) noted staff shortages, technical failures, and a lack of necessary equipment. The situation was particularly difficult in Andalusia and the Canary Islands, where the changes were largely formal and court operations remained almost unchanged. Nevertheless, according to the CGPJ, there were no widespread delays or cancellations of hearings, except in isolated cases.
The Ministry of Justice considers these difficulties temporary, attributing them to the scale of the reform. In some regions, the transition has been delayed because the previous 2010 reform was not implemented there. In Catalonia, the Basque Country, and several other territories where preparations began earlier, there have been fewer problems. One example of these challenges is the courthouse in Soria, housed in a 16th-century historic mansion, making refurbishment impossible. Authorities emphasize that the timing of the rollout was a deliberate decision to avoid delays, as had happened in the past.
Debate and assessments
The professional community continues to debate how effective the new measures are. Some experts believe that the decline in cases is due not only to the reforms but also to a general decrease in people taking cases to court. Others point to risks of restricted access to justice for vulnerable groups. According to El Pais, the ministry rejects accusations of inadequate preparation, attributing criticism to misunderstanding or reluctance to change the established system.
The issue of access to justice and reform effectiveness remains relevant in other European countries as well. For example, there was a recent discussion about a court case that could affect extradition to Spain— the proceedings involving the former ETA leader in France sparked wide public debate and prompted renewed discussions about the role of courts and international procedures.
In recent years, Spain has repeatedly faced the need to reform its judicial system. In 2022, the focus was on court digitalization, while in 2024, staffing issues and salary increases came to the fore. Other EU countries are also introducing alternative dispute resolution methods, but their effectiveness often depends on national legal specifics and the public’s willingness to embrace change. In Spain, access to justice and the speed of case processing remain pressing issues, and any proposed reforms spark heated debate among lawyers, judges, and ordinary citizens.
