Something like this has not been seen since 2016. For the first time in ten years, the pendency, as the unresolved workload is called, has begun to decrease in the courts and tribunals throughout Spain. It has been little, 0.67% overall, but it predicts a hopeful trend. The greatest decrease has been recorded in the civil order, with a drop of 4.5%. Sources from the Ministry of Justice attribute this to the combined success of the implementation of the Appropriate Means of Settlement of Disputes (MASC), which have been rolling out for a year, and the , which were fully launched in 2026, along with a . However, other legal operators are skeptical. The Illustrious Bar Association of Madrid (ICAM), for example, warns that in reality the imposition of the MASC, which requires negotiation before litigating, has generated a “barrier effect.”
The truth is that the drop in pendency coincides with a decrease in litigation, which in the last year has been reduced by 10% in civil, criminal, social and contentious-administrative matters, although the most notable reduction has been in civil and commercial matters, with 20.4%. For this reason, ministerial sources believe that the emergence of the MASC is one of the main causes of the decrease in pending matters. On the other hand, the ICAM estimates that they can represent a real “barrier” to “accessing the judge”, thus violating the right to effective judicial protection. The professional association warns that they may constitute a “toll” that prevents access to Justice. He warns that they can also slow it down, becoming counterproductive, because they not only delay the litigation but also generate a new one around the procedural requirement itself.
Legal operators consulted by EL PAÍS indicate that one of the main traffic jams caused by the MASC has occurred in family matters, especially in cases with minors involved. For this reason, the ICAM, the Colleges of Attorneys of Madrid (ICPM) and Barcelona (ICPB), as well as the Professional Association of Lawyers of the Administration of Justice (PROLAJ), have signed a joint statement requesting its suppression in family proceedings with minors. Ministerial sources assure that this matter is under study, although they maintain that “the most authoritative voices”, which they identify as the judges and magistrates specialized in the matter, defend that it is precisely in those cases where the MASC are most needed so that the interest that prevails is really that of the minor, not that of the parents. In any case, they emphasize that these types of issues had already been resolved in the vast majority (between 60% and 80%) through negotiation.
The Ministry of Justice also emphasizes that, although it is true that in the first months of the MASC a “traffic” was observed, enough time has passed (one year) to observe a generalized effect of reduction of litigation in the civil and commercial order. Regarding this, they highlight that they have served to eliminate “artificial litigation”, as they refer to that which is maintained in cases where the Supreme Court has already established criteria but which remain open. In these cases, they affirm, the MASC have helped introduce the concept of “abuse of Justice”, which some judges are already beginning to apply.
“Invest wisely”
In any case, ministerial sources emphasize that the MASC are not the only factor, also pointing to the change brought about by the lower courts. His arrival has meant transforming the traditional court, consisting of a judge from whom an entire judicial office hangs, into a collegiate body with judicial units (judges) and officials of the different categories that are necessary.
From the portfolio headed by Félix Bolaños, they maintain that this new system has allowed for “surgical investments”, that is, putting the resources that are needed, be it a judge, a lawyer from the administration of justice (LAJ) or any other official, where their services are needed. The previous model, they explain, required the creation of an entire judicial office, which required an average investment of 500,000 euros. They estimate that, with the change, the State will save more than 350 million euros in the coming years by being able to “invest wisely.”
But that will be in the long run because, for now, the lower courts have forced a disbursement of 1,121 million euros in this legislature alone. The biggest bill has been for digitalization, which has taken 850 million. In second place is the investment in personnel, of 192 million. This item includes not only the creation of new positions – such as the 500 judicial positions – but also the salary increases agreed in 2022 and 2023 with associations of judges and LAJ and the Justice unions in anticipation of the new functions attributed to these bodies by the trial courts. To all this are added 79 million in works to physically adapt the courts and tribunals.
To the economic effort, ministerial sources add another planning and coordination effort. They claim that the model of the lower courts had been in the minds of all legal operators, including the autonomous communities with powers in Justice, for years. In fact, they point to the judicial office that was implemented in 2010 as a clear precedent and remember that the reference models were approved in 2022.
“Specific, non-structural incidents”
Despite everything, the lower courts have been subject to . A recent report from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which echoes the incidents reported by the Superior Courts of Justice and the National Court, due to insufficient personnel, whether due to a low staff, excess vacancies or loss of reinforcements considered essential; widespread computer problems that focus on procedural management systems; and complaints about the lack of renovations and even furniture and computer equipment, as well as erroneous or confusing signage. The Judiciary drew attention to the cases of Andalusia and the Canary Islands because the reports received show a merely formal implementation, to the point that they conclude that the courts there continue to function the same as before this organizational change came into effect in the judicial system. However, the CGPJ indicated that the change has not caused suspensions or delays in judicial appointments, except in specific cases.
The ministerial sources reiterate that these are “specific incidents”, which they consider normal if the magnitude of the transformation undertaken is taken into account, emphasizing that there are none of a “structural” nature. In line, they highlight that Justice and the autonomous communities ruled out a general extension of the implementation of the lower courts at the sectoral conference last December.
To those mentioned by the CGPJ, there are others such as the delay in the competitions that affect the personnel of the administration of justice, which were paralyzed to facilitate the entry into force of the lower courts, which has meant a delay of one year, or material difficulties that, in some cases, are insurmountable. As an example, they give the Soria Courthouse, located in a 16th century Renaissance building from which “no one wants to move” and where “not even a wall can be touched” because it is protected.
They also see it as normal that in many autonomous communities the change is costing more because they did not implement the reform of the judicial office agreed upon at the time (2010). Where this transformation was undertaken, mainly in Catalonia, the Basque Country and the territory of the ministry (Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Extremadura, Balearic Islands, Murcia and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla), the difficulties have been minor; But the refusal of the other regional administrations to address it – in 15 years it has only been completed at 30% – has been a burden for them when it comes to facing this latest evolutionary leap, the sources consulted reason. And they take advantage of this context to justify giving a period of one year for the full deployment of the trial courts. “It may not be enough,” they say, but the alternative was “not setting deadlines,” and the result was already seen with the judicial office.
Thus, from the department led by Bolaños they reject “the widespread criticism of collapse”, “lack of planning and investment” or “occurrence” and attribute them to the “ignorance” that this is a change that has been brewing for years, to the natural resistance to abandon a model in force since time immemorial or directly to “malice.” They do not doubt that the modernization of Justice is on the right path and they consider that the first data prove them right. “At least we have reversed the pendence curve,” they celebrate.
