The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has warned the Ministry of Justice after the government refused to fund reinforcement measures for 62 courts across Spain. The CGPJ’s executive body, the Permanent Commission, cautioned that the decision could force the suspension of judicial activities considered impressive to upholding citizens’ rights. The dispute centers on the ministry’s refusal to fund most of the requested reinforcements, citing a impressive overrun of the agreed budget limit.
The Ministry of Justice says it has approved 232 support measures this year and denied only 64. Officials argue that the CGPJ’s requests would have pushed reinforcement spending to nearly €12 million, well above the approximately €7.2 million cap set by the last protocol, signed in 2019. A parliamentary response cited by ABC put the protocol’s allocation at €7,179,842 and the CGPJ’s later requests at €12,384,577: a difference of €5,204,735, or about 72.5% above the protocol amount. The government cited budget availability in explaining why it would not authorize at least one extension of a reinforcement post. The ministry has also said a new €8 million agreement has been pending since March, and that the value of reinforcements approved in 2026 already exceeds the current budget structure.
The CGPJ criticized the ministry for communicating its decision at the last minute, on the eve of the deadline to approve or extend the measures. The council said the timing left no room to propose alternatives or adjustments that could limit the impact. Among the denied requests was a reinforcement judge for the Audiencia Nacional’s Central Court of Instruction No. 1, a basic post currently held by Francisco de Jorge. Most rejected measures concern civil courts, where backlogs and mass litigation, including disputes over floor clauses and airline claims, are common.
The potential consequences reach beyond commercial disputes. ABC reported that a court in Seville scheduled a hearing for 15 January 2031 in a case concerning entitlement to a maternity-related pension. The date illustrates the delays facing some litigants in civil and social courts, where withdrawing or failing to renew temporary support can reduce the time available to process cases.
Ministry sources said many reinforcement requests are tied to mass litigation, which the Law on the Efficiency of the Public Justice Service addresses through mechanisms such as pilot cases and the extension of legal effects. The law also addresses the concept of abuse of rights. These tools are intended to simplify proceedings without additional public spending. The ministry has voiced concern that the CGPJ is not making full use of measures designed to address such cases.
National workload figures put the dispute in a wider context. The CGPJ’s public statistical portal reported 1,933,412 new cases registered by Spanish judicial bodies in the second quarter and 1,846,627 cases resolved, a gap of 86,785 more incoming cases than resolved matters during the period. These are national totals, but they show the broader pressure on court capacity. Separate reporting from Córdoba described more than 10,000 pending matters across the social and commercial jurisdictions there.
Despite the standoff, the Ministry of Justice has pointed to the creation of 500 new judicial positions under the same judicial-efficiency reforms, hoping the expansion will reduce the structural need for temporary reinforcements. The national appointments were made under a Royal Decree published in July. In Córdoba, seven posts were announced for the Courts of Instance in Córdoba and Lucena: five in Córdoba and two in Lucena, covering civil and family work alongside social and commercial cases. All seven members of the CGPJ’s Permanent Commission signed its unanimous statement, including conservative and progressive representatives. The warning has caused unease among some in the progressive camp, who saw it as a last-resort measure intended to prompt dialogue rather than escalate tensions.
Judicial reinforcement also depends on more than the number of judges. In the Basque Country, a reinforcement judge began work in the section handling violence-against-women cases on 1 July 2025, and a territorial judge was assigned to the post from 11 June 2026. In June 2026, the Basque Justice Department added three court-office staff members, including a manager and a procedural officer, alongside a judicial-assistance officer. It also allocated courtroom space to prevent clashes with the titular judge’s hearings. The governing body of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country said the measures had produced a “impressive reduction” in pending criminal and civil proceedings. The example shows how staffing and scheduling, along with courtroom availability, can shape the practical effect of a judicial reinforcement.
The latest clash follows a series of disputes between the judiciary and the government, including controversies over executive criticism of judicial decisions and the rollout of new Courts of First Instance. There was, but, a period of cooperation when both sides agreed to create 500 new judge positions. The continuing friction reflects wider debates about judicial independence and resource allocation in Spain’s legal system. Similar tensions over judicial decisions and government intervention have surfaced in other high-profile cases, including the Supreme Court’s recent suspension of a major corruption sentence, as reported in coverage of the Aldama case.
On the same day as the CGPJ’s warning, Justice Minister Félix Bolaños presented a review of the first year of the new Courts of First Instance. He called the results “reasonably positive,” citing a 7.3% increase in scheduled trials and a 5.4% rise in hearings, while new litigation fell by 10% overall and by more than 21% in civil matters. Bolaños attributed these trends to the mandatory use of alternative dispute resolution methods introduced in April 2025. The ministry said the shift had led to a modest decline in pending civil cases for the first time in a decade, excluding the pandemic period. The minister also said the data aligned with figures provided by the CGPJ and noted that the judicial sector, including all associations, had unanimously called for the new courts.
Spain’s judicial system continues to face persistent backlogs and resource constraints. The dispute over reinforcement funding highlights the tension between budget limits and the need to ensure timely, effective justice. New legal tools and a larger judicial workforce are intended to address these problems, but their effectiveness will depend on continued cooperation between the judiciary and the government. The practical impact on court operations and citizens’ access to justice remains a central concern.
