Legislative Developments
The government approves the Draft Law on the Statute of Persons in Non-Work Practical Training, a key instrument for equal opportunities
The Council of Ministers on 4 November 2025 approved, at the proposal of the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, the Statute of people in non-work practical training, known as the Statute of the Scholarship Holder. The regulation complies with the mandate of RDL 32/2021 and seeks to clearly separate what is training and what is work, avoiding the use of scholarships as disguised employment and guaranteeing minimum rights during internships in companies, institutions and public or private bodies.
From the title and terminology itself, the change in focus can be appreciated. The traditional figure of the "intern", associated for years with precariousness and low-skilled tasks, is abandoned, and the category of "person in non-work practical training" is introduced, necessarily linked to a regulated or recognised training itinerary (Vocational Training, university education, training specialities of the National Employment System, etc.).
This requires that the internships have a genuinely training purpose, articulated through an individual training plan, and that the tasks assigned in the company are directly related to the academic or training content planned. Practice ceases to be a mere "help" in the day-to-day running of the company to be configured as an applied extension of theoretical training.
One of the central elements of the Statute is the express prohibition of using trainees to replace workers or cover structural staff needs. Internships cannot occupy ordinary jobs or serve as covert coverage for vacancies, casualties or stable reinforcements. The regulation also introduces quantitative and organisational limits: a limit is established on the number of trainees over the total workforce and a maximum number of trainees is set that can depend on each tutor, reinforcing the idea of real and quality support, and not merely formal supervision.
At the same time, the Statute recognises a set of minimum rights for people in training. Together with the provision of compensation for expenses arising from the internship (transport, maintenance, etc., in the terms defined), access to the services of the workplace is guaranteed in conditions similar to those of the workforce (facilities, means, basic resources), respect for dignity and physical and moral integrity, and protection from any form of violence or harassment. The legal representation of workers (RLT) also plays an important role, as it is recognised as having the right to be informed of the non-labour internship programmes that are carried out in the company, of their essential characteristics and of the effective presence of people in training.
From the point of view of control and supervision, the regulation provides for the creation of specific mechanisms for monitoring internships, both internally (through the appointment of tutors and, where appropriate, monitoring committees) and externally, through the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate, which will be able to access the documentation associated with internship agreements. training plans and tutoring records. This implies that the documentary model (agreements, training annexes, tutor accreditation, monitoring reports) is no longer a mere bureaucratic procedure to become a key piece of business defence against possible inspection actions or claims by "false interns".
What does it mean, in practice, for host companies and entities? Firstly, the need to map and order all the existing internship figures (dual vocational training, curricular internships, extracurricular internships, programmes with public employment services, etc.) and check that they really fit within the scope of the Statute. Secondly, an individual internship plan will have to be designed and documented for each person in training, where objectives, contents, admissible tasks and monitoring system are defined, avoiding that the generic or ambiguous description of functions can be interpreted as an ordinary job. Likewise, it will be essential to review the functions that are currently assigned to trainees to verify that they are not covering, de facto, structural positions or replacing permanent people.
In addition, it will be advisable to implement a specific internal procedure for the management of internships, which regulates the selection criteria, the duration of the stays, the designation and responsibilities of the tutor, the communication channels with the training centres, the measures for preventing harassment or discrimination and the way in which the RLT will be informed and participated. This procedure should be accompanied by an adequate organisation of the documentation (agreements, annexes, communications with universities or vocational training centres, evaluation reports), so that it can be made available to the Labour Inspectorate with agility and coherence.
In short, the Statute of the Intern configures a more guarantee-oriented and demanding framework for non-labour practices, which forces companies to move from an informal or purely administrative model to a structured compliance approach, focused on the training purpose, the traceability of the relationship and the prevention of situations of fraud of the law. A good initial diagnosis of existing internship programmes, followed by the updating of agreements and protocols, will allow the organisation to adapt to this new scenario and minimise both occupational and reputational risks.
Royal Decree-Law 12/2025: extraordinary Social Security measures after the DANA
Royal Decree-Law 12/2025, of 28 October (BOE 29-10-2025), approves a package of urgent measures for the reactivation and reconstruction of the municipalities affected by the DANA of October-November 2024. In the field of Social Security, Chapter III provides for an extraordinary deferral of contributions and a reinforced protection regime for cessation of activity for self-employed workers damaged by the episode.
On the one hand, it is allowed to defer the payment of contributions accrued between November 2025 and January 2026 (companies and self-employed workers in the Sea Regime) and between December 2025 and February 2026 (other self-employed workers in other special regimes), under conditions similar to those already provided for in RDL 6/2024. On the other hand, self-employed workers who on 31 January 2025 were beneficiaries of the extraordinary cessation of activity benefit of said RDL will be able to access a new benefit between 1 February and 31 December 2025, provided that the cessation directly linked to the DANA is maintained, they have not received the ordinary cessation benefit or worked as an employee in that period.
The benefit will initially be recognised on a provisional basis by Mutual Societies and the Social Institute of the Navy and will be subject to review from 1 March 2026, with possible reimbursement of benefits and contributions if there is a lack of requirements or early termination of the right; if another modality simply applies, it will be reclassified without losing protection. The measures are financed through state transfers to the Social Security system and RDL 12/2025 has been in force since 30 October 2025.
In practice, affected companies and self-employed workers should: (i) verify whether they are within the territorial and material scope of RDL 6/2024 and 12/2025; (ii) assess the use of the deferral of installments as a liquidity instrument; (iii) review with their mutual insurance company or advisor the possibility of accessing the new extraordinary benefit, taking care of application deadlines and requirements; and (iv) to preserve a solid documentary trace (affectation by the DANA, cessation of activity, invoicing) in view of the review scheduled for 2026.
European Commission Digital Omnibus Package
On 19 November 2025, the European Commission presented two proposals for regulations – the Digital Omnibus on the Digital Acquis and the Digital Omnibus on AI – marking a significant shift in the regulation of the digital environment in the EU. The aim is to simplify, harmonise and update a fragmented legal ecosystem, integrating existing rules and adjusting obligations in terms of data, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.
In the field of the Digital Heritage, the proposal introduces profound modifications to the GDPR, the Data Act and the cybersecurity framework. Of note is the new definition of personal data, which incorporates the doctrine of the CJEU and limits the processing of pseudonymised data; the inclusion of additional exceptions for processing sensitive data (AI control and biometric verification); and the incorporation, for the first time, of the regulation of cookies and tracking technologies directly into the GDPR. In addition, the deadline for notification of security breaches is extended to 96 hours.
The Data Act becomes the central norm of the data ecosystem: it absorbs the Data Governance Act and the Open Data Directive, while introducing relevant sectoral adjustments – for example, allowing public bodies to apply differentiated conditions and rates to DMA gatekeepers. The P2B Regulation, considered to have already been superseded by the WFD and the DSA, is also repealed. In cybersecurity, the main novelty is the creation of a single European point of incident notification, which avoids the multiplication of reports under frameworks such as DORA, NIS 2 or GDPR.
In parallel, the AI Digital Omnibus proposes an early revision of the AI Regulation approved just over a year ago. It is proposed to make its deployment more flexible through new implementation deadlines conditional on Commission decisions, extending the adaptation windows and setting ceilings between 2027 and 2028. A harmonised definition of mid-cap is introduced, which will allow many of the simplifications initially planned only for SMEs to be extended to these companies, including documentary exemptions and a more proportionate sanctioning regime.
The proposal also removes the obligation of "AI literacy" for providers and users, transferring that responsibility to the Commission and the Member States; promotes the use of European regulatory sandboxes; and it enables, with caution, the processing of specially protected data to detect and correct biases in AI systems. Finally, the cases of mandatory registration in the Database of High-Risk AI Systems are reduced and the interaction of the Regulation with sectoral frameworks, such as aeronautics, is clarified.
These proposals represent a turning point for European digital regulation. While intense debate is expected in Parliament and the Council, the end result will shape a new, more integrated regulatory map, with clearer obligations for tech companies, platforms, AI developers, and organizations that process personal and non-personal data. The process has just begun and will need to be closely monitored to anticipate regulatory impacts and adapt compliance strategies.
European Commission Digital Omnibus Package
On 19 November 2025, the European Commission presented two proposals for Regulations – the Digital Omnibus on the Digital Acquis and the Digital Omnibus on AI – marking a significant shift in the regulation of the digital environment in the EU. The aim is to simplify, harmonise and update a fragmented legal ecosystem, integrating existing rules and adjusting obligations in terms of data, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.
In the field of the Digital Heritage, the proposal introduces profound modifications to the GDPR, the Data Act and the cybersecurity framework. Of note is the new definition of personal data, which incorporates the doctrine of the CJEU and limits the processing of pseudonymised data; the inclusion of additional exceptions for processing sensitive data (AI control and biometric verification); and the incorporation, for the first time, of the regulation of cookies and tracking technologies directly into the GDPR. In addition, the deadline for notification of security breaches is extended to 96 hours.
The Data Act becomes the central norm of the data ecosystem: it absorbs the Data Governance Act and the Open Data Directive, while introducing relevant sectoral adjustments – for example, allowing public bodies to apply differentiated conditions and rates to DMA gatekeepers. The P2B Regulation, considered to have already been superseded by the WFD and the DSA, is also repealed. In cybersecurity, the main novelty is the creation of a single European point of incident notification, which avoids the multiplication of reports under frameworks such as DORA, NIS 2 or GDPR.
In parallel, the AI Digital Omnibus proposes an early revision of the AI Regulation approved just over a year ago. It is proposed to make its deployment more flexible through new implementation deadlines conditional on Commission decisions, extending the adaptation windows and setting ceilings between 2027 and 2028. A harmonised definition of mid-cap is introduced, which will allow many of the simplifications initially planned only for SMEs to be extended to these companies, including documentary exemptions and a more proportionate sanctioning regime.
The proposal also removes the obligation of "AI literacy" for providers and users, transferring that responsibility to the Commission and the Member States; promotes the use of European regulatory sandboxes; and it enables, with caution, the processing of specially protected data to detect and correct biases in AI systems. Finally, the cases of mandatory registration in the Database of High-Risk AI Systems are reduced and the interaction of the Regulation with sectoral frameworks, such as aeronautics, is clarified.
These proposals represent a turning point for European digital regulation. While intense debate is expected in Parliament and the Council, the end result will shape a new, more integrated regulatory map, with clearer obligations for tech companies, platforms, AI developers, and organizations that process personal and non-personal data. The process has just begun and will need to be closely monitored to anticipate regulatory impacts and adapt compliance strategies.
Jurisprudence
COMPULSORY TRAINING = WORKING TIME
Judgment of the Supreme Court (Labour Chamber, Section 1), no. 753/2025, rec. 34/2024, of 9 September 2025.
Appellant: General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and UGT
Respondent: Sociedad de Salvamento y Seguridad Marítima (SASEMAR)
Rapporteur: Ángel Antonio Blasco Pellicer
ECLI: ES:TS:2025:3821
Factual Background:
The conflict originates from a lawsuit filed by CGT against SASEMAR, in which it is requested that the time spent on the courses for the revalidation of maritime certificates (such as safety, survival and firefighting) and the trips to attend these courses be considered effective working time. UGT and CCOO join the demand. In the first instance, the National Court, on 10 November 2023, dismissed the claim, considering that the training was the individual responsibility of the worker. Faced with this decision, CGT and UGT filed an appeal in cassation, alleging error in the assessment of the evidence and violation of the related regulations, in particular article 23.1 d) of the Workers' Statute, articles 14 and 19 of the Law on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, and Directive 2008/106/EC.
Grounds of Law:
Article 23.1 d) of the Workers' Statute recognises the right to continuous training to adapt to changes in the workplace, and establishes that such time must be considered working time. The periodic revalidation of certificates is a requirement derived from regulatory changes, both national and international (STCW Convention and European Union Directive), which implies a substantial modification of the conditions of the workplace. Previous case law (STS 979/2017 and STS 2013) reinforces the doctrine that the compulsory training necessary to maintain professional qualifications must be considered working time. In addition, the company covers the costs and allowances associated with these courses, which strengthens the employment relationship during the training period.
Legal Conclusion:
The training required by international and national regulations, which is necessary to maintain professional qualifications, is an obligation linked to the job. Therefore, the time spent on such courses and travel must be counted as effective working time.
Ruling:
The appeal is upheld.He marries and annuls the judgment of the National Court.
The right of workers to have the time spent on courses and travel considered effective working time is declared.
No imposition of costs.
MEAL TIME AS WORK TIME IF YOU DON'T DISCONNECT
Judgment of the Supreme Court (Labour Chamber, Section 1), no. 808/2025, rec. 105/2023, of 23 September 2025
Appellant: AMBULANCIAS DOMINGO, S.A.U.
Respondents: SITAC and CGT Trade Union Section
Speaker: Félix Azón Vilas
ECLI: ES:TS:2025:4159
Factual Background:
The dispute stems from a substantial change in working conditions (MSCT) in the emergency medical transport sector. The company AMBULANCIAS DOMINGO, S.A.U. changed the consideration of mealtime from paid presence time to unpaid rest, based on the allegation that the workers would be authorised to disconnect during that time. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia declared the modification null and void, considering that it violated the fundamental rights of workers, in particular the right to indemnity and the enforcement of judgments. Faced with this decision, the company filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Grounds of Law:
The Supreme Court analyzes whether the modification of the company is in accordance with the law, especially in relation to the disconnection during lunch time. In the event of total disconnection, meal time should be considered rest and not presence time. The company presented evidence that the modification had been negotiated and that there were organizational causes, including SEMSA's authorization. The SC stresses that there has been no violation of fundamental rights or retaliation, and that the modification responds to a change in production conditions. It is also concluded that there is no res judicata, since the circumstances have changed with respect to previous judgments.
Legal Conclusion:
Meal time is considered effective working time when workers maintain active communications and there is no total disconnection, which implies that, in the absence of such disconnection, meal time must be treated as working time, in accordance with the provisions of the judgments that deal with the nature of presence time and disconnection in the workplace.
Failure:
The employer's appeal is upheld.
The trade union appeals are dismissed.
The judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia is set aside and the substantial modification of working conditions is declared in accordance with the law.
No costs.
A "QUICK ADJUSTMENT" ON THE MEDICAL REPORT CAN COST YOU A CRIMINAL RECORD.
Judgment of the Supreme Court (Criminal Chamber, Section 1), no. 807/2025, rec. 426/2023, of 2 October 2025
Appellant: Public Prosecutor's Office
Respondent: Luis Enrique
Speaker: Susana Polo García
ECLI: ES:TS:2025:4219
Factual Background:
Luis Enrique falsified a medical report in order to justify an absence from work and receive €31.96 for an additional day of leave. The procedure began when, after receiving a real medical leave for gastroenteritis of a single day, the defendant decided to modify the date of the medical report and send it to his company. Subsequently, he sent a "rectified" version of it. The falsification was detected when the Social Security sent the official data to the company, which evidenced the discrepancy between the altered medical report and the real records. The Criminal Court convicted Luis Enrique, but the Provincial Court acquitted him, considering that it was a scanned copy and not an original document. The Public Prosecutor's Office appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.
Grounds of Law:
The Supreme Court clarifies that the falsity of a document does not depend on the medium on which it is presented, but on the nature of the document that is simulated. In this case, the medical report, although digitally modified, maintains its nature as an official document, which makes forgery a crime typified in article 392.1 in relation to article 390.1 of the Criminal Code. In case law (STS 577/2020 and STS 1126/2011), it has been established that any attempt to alter an official document, even through digital means such as scanning or manipulation in editing programs, constitutes document forgery.
Legal Conclusion:
The falsification of an official document, even if it is carried out through digital means such as photocopies, scans or electronic modifications, is a criminal offence classified as forgery in an official document, according to the precepts of the Penal Code. This conduct is legally typical and should be sanctioned as such, regardless of the amount of money involved.
Ruling:
The appeal of the Public Prosecutor's Office is upheld.
Luis Enrique is sentenced to 6 months in prison and a fine of €6 per day for 6 months.
The judgment of the Provincial Court is annulled and annulled.
There is no appeal against this judgment.
DISMISSAL FOR WORKING DURING SICK LEAVE: VALID EVIDENCE AND BROKEN GOOD FAITH
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Labour Chamber, Section 1), no. 712/2025, rec. 471/2025, of 11 July 2025
Appellant: Hermenegildo
Respondent: AVIO SOLUCIONES INTEGRADAS, S.A. (CLECE FS, S.A.)
Speaker: Ángela Mostajo Veiga
ECLI: ES:TSJM:2025:8991
Factual Background:
The worker Hermenegildo was in a situation of temporary disability (TI) due to an anxiety-depressive disorder. During the period of leave, it was discovered that he was working in construction activities, which was corroborated by evidence presented by private detectives, who captured photographs of the worker carrying out these activities from the public road. The company proceeded to dismiss the worker for breach of his obligations and for breaching contractual good faith, and in addition, a fine was imposed on him for recklessness. The Social Court declared the dismissal fair and the imposition of the fine.
Grounds of Law:
The Supreme Court analyses the validity of the evidence presented, considering that the photographs obtained from the public road are valid evidence to prove the worker's activity during the leave. This activity, which is clearly incompatible with the situation of temporary employment, violates the contractual good faith that should govern labour relations. The gradualist theory is applied, according to which the seriousness of the breach justifies the fair dismissal. However, the fine for recklessness was revoked by the Court, as it did not consider the sanction imposed by the company to be sufficiently reasoned.
Legal Conclusion:
The dismissal is fair, since the worker has seriously and culpably failed to comply with his obligations by carrying out activities incompatible with his situation of temporary disability, in breach of contractual good faith. As for the fine for recklessness, it is revoked due to the lack of motivation in its imposition.
Failure:
The fair dismissal is maintained.
The fine for recklessness is revoked.
No costs.
OBJECTIVE DISMISSAL DUE TO TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT: APPROPRIATE IN THE FACE OF THE IRRUPTION OF AI?
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León (Labour Chamber, 1st Section), no. 3529/2025, rec. 2003/2025, of 15 September 2025
Appellant: Mrs. Melisa
Respondent: TRADUCTORES E INTÉRPRETES EUROTEXT, S.L. and FOGASA
Rapporteur: José Manuel Riesco Iglesias
ECLI: ES:TSJCL:2025:3529
Factual Background:
Ms. Melisa, an employee of the company TRADUCTORES E INTÉRPRETES EUROTEXT, S.L., with a permanent contract since 2007 and a professional category of ESP TRADUCCIÓN IX, was dismissed under article 52.c of the Workers' Statute, alleging economic, organisational and productive reasons arising from the introduction of machine translation and artificial intelligence (AI). which caused a drop in revenue and sales. The company based its decision on the need to reduce the workforce to avoid closure. The Labour Court declared the dismissal to be justified. However, the worker appealed, arguing that there were no real losses and that no objective criteria had been used for her dismissal.
Grounds of Law:
The Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León dismissed the modification of the proven facts, since the company's accounts reflected losses and a decrease in sales, especially during the years 2023 and 2024. It was confirmed that the company had accredited the economic (losses) and organizational (downsizing) causes, and that the forecast of future losses is valid as long as it is supported by objective data. Article 52.c of the Workers' Statute was not violated, since the forecast of future losses and the measures adopted by the company were reasonable and based on verifiable data. In addition, the doctrine on arbitrary selection was not applied, as there was no evidence that the worker had been selected arbitrarily compared to other employees in the same category.
Legal Conclusion:
Dismissal for technical and productive reasons derived from the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) is considered fair, provided that the following requirements are met:
- Existence of a real and reasonable need for the adoption of staff reduction measures.
- Elective disappearance of the workplace due to automation.
- Impossibility of relocating the worker to another position within the company.
- Transparency in the decision-making process and acting in good faith by the company.
Ruling:
The appeal filed by the worker is dismissed.
The judgment declaring the dismissal to be justified is confirmed.
No costs.
DISMISSAL LETTER DRAFTED BY THE AI
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (Labour Chamber, Section 1), no. 7806/2024, rec. 2759/2024, of 16 October 2024
Appellant: HUGO GIRO, S.L.
Respondent: Mr. Gabriel
Rapporteur: Carlos Escribano Vindel
ECLI: ES:TSJCAT:2024:7806
Factual Background:
The worker, Mr. Gabriel, a marble worker with an indefinite contract since 2021, was dismissed on 30 September 2022 by means of a disciplinary dismissal letter alleging a voluntary decrease in his performance. This letter was automatically generated. During his time at work, Mr. Gabriel had undergone a medical examination that granted him restrictions for exposure to silica, and subsequently, he was diagnosed with silicosis. After a leave of absence due to temporary disability (TD), the company proceeded to dismiss him, to which Mr. Gabriel responded with a lawsuit, alleging discrimination due to his health condition. The Social Court declared the dismissal null and void, considering that the fundamental right not to be discriminated against on the basis of disability had been violated.
Grounds of Law:
Law 15/2022 extends protection against discrimination to include illness and health condition, which strengthens the legal framework to prevent discriminatory dismissals in these cases. The Court analysed the indications of discrimination, based on the medical certificate with restrictions and the sick leave due to TD related to silicosis, noting that the dismissal occurred immediately after the last leave. The company did not prove a real cause or justify the proportionality of the dismissal, and the dismissal letter lacked the proper motivation, which evidenced a lack of good faith. The Court emphasises that, although the definitive diagnosis of silicosis was made subsequently, there were already sufficient indications to consider the dismissal as a discriminatory measure.
Legal Conclusion:
The dismissal violates Mr. Gabriel's fundamental rights, specifically Articles 14 and 24 of the Spanish Constitution, as it is based on discrimination due to illness, in addition to the failure to adopt the necessary reasonable adjustments in his job.
The court asserts the lack of sufficient motivation in a dismissal letter that it considers to have been automatically generated by AI.
Failure:
The appeal filed by the company is dismissed.
The nullity of the dismissal is confirmed.
The company is ordered to reinstate the worker and pay the processing wages.
An order for costs in the amount of €500 is imposed.
SEX AT WORK: FAIR DISMISSAL FOR BREACH OF GOOD FAITH?
Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Labour Chamber, Section 1), no. 10699/2025, rec. 302/2025, of 11 September 2025
Appellant: ADECCO OUTSOURCING SAU
Respondent: D. Calixto
Rapporteur: María del Carmen López Hormeño
ECLI: ES:TSJM:2025:10699
Factual Background:
The worker, Mr. Calixto, with an indefinite contract since 2019 and the category of Waiter, was dismissed after performing oral sexual practices with a colleague in a corridor of the El Corte Inglés logistics center on June 14, 2023. The fact was acknowledged by the worker himself. The company, on 15 June 2023, notified him of a disciplinary dismissal for breach of contractual good faith and breach of trust, based on article 54.2 of the Workers' Statute (SW) and article 57.13 of the Department Store Agreement. The Social Court declared the dismissal unfair, ordering reinstatement or the payment of compensation.
Grounds of Law:
The High Court of Justice analyzes the seriousness of the conduct, considering that sexual practice in a workplace, specifically in a traffic corridor, constitutes a serious violation of contractual good faith. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court establishes that the breach of contractual good faith can justify disciplinary dismissal if the conduct is serious and culpable. In this case, even if no direct economic damage has been proven, the worker's conduct is serious enough to justify the maximum sanction, since the company's trust was broken and the work environment was compromised.
Legal Conclusion:
Disciplinary dismissal is appropriate for serious and culpable breach of employment obligations, given that the conduct manifestly violates contractual good faith, even if economic damage to the company has not been proven.
Ruling:
The appeal filed by the company is upheld.
The judgment of the lower court is revoked and the dismissal is declared fair.
​No costs.
