Anti-temporality Law in Public Employment Before the Constitutional Court: What Risk Do Thousands of Stabilized Positions Face

Key data

Thousands of public employees who accessed their positions through the stabilization processes provided for in Law 20/2021, of December 28, face unprecedented legal uncertainty. The Plenary of the Constitutional Court has admitted for processing the unconstitutionality question no. 4688-2026, promoted by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, which questions the constitutional validity of the provisions that regulated those processes.

The resolution was published in the Official State Gazette on July 30, 2026 and opens a scenario of uncertainty for both stabilized workers and public administrations that convened those positions. Until the Constitutional Court rules, the situation remains in a legal limbo that could last for months or years.

What does this regulation establish?

Law 20/2021, of December 28, on urgent measures to reduce temporality in public employment, was approved to address the high rate of structural temporality in Spanish administrations, partly in response to European jurisprudence on abuse of temporary contracting.

The two provisions now questioned regulated central aspects of the stabilization processes:

• Sixth additional provision: Regulated the stabilization processes of temporary personnel, establishing the conditions and modalities of access to the convened positions.
• Eighth additional provision: Set specific access conditions for certain groups of temporary personnel within the framework of those same stabilization processes.

The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, in the framework of ordinary proceeding 436-2022, considered that these provisions could violate constitutional principles—presumably those of equality, merit and capacity in access to public employment—and raised the question to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court, which has admitted it for processing.

Economic and operational impact

Admission for processing does not imply that the Constitutional Court will declare unconstitutionality, but it generates immediate operational and economic consequences that cannot be ignored:

• Uncertainty about the firmness of positions: Employees stabilized under the questioned provisions have no guarantee that their situation is definitive until the Constitutional Court rules.
• Risk of nullity of selection processes: If the Constitutional Court declares the provisions unconstitutional, selection processes already carried out and positions derived from them could be rendered void.
• Cost of new convocation for administrations: In case of nullity, public administrations would need to reconsider the filling of those positions, with the economic and organizational cost that this entails.
• Increasing litigation: The Constitutional Court's admission will likely encourage new appeals and claims by candidates who did not pass those processes.

Who does it affect?

• Temporary public employees stabilized through the processes provided for in Law 20/2021, especially those who accessed through the routes regulated in the sixth and eighth additional provisions.
• Public administrations (State, autonomous communities, local entities) that convened and resolved stabilization processes under that law.
• Candidates and applicants who participated in or were excluded from those processes and who could see their legal situation reopened.
• Parties to ordinary proceeding 436-2022 before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, who have a deadline of 15 days from July 30, 2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court.
• Legal advisors and HR managers of public entities who must assess the risk and plan scenarios.

Practical example

A local administration that convened in 2022-2023 a stabilization process for 80 administrative personnel positions under the sixth additional provision of Law 20/2021, and that has already resolved the competitive examination or merit competition, now finds itself in the following situation:

• The 80 stabilized employees have their position in a state of legal uncertainty until the Constitutional Court rules on question no. 4688-2026.
• If the Constitutional Court declares the provisions unconstitutional, the administration must analyze whether the appointments are void ab initio or if there is any safeguard mechanism for those affected in good faith.
• Candidates who did not pass that process could file appeals based on the eventual declaration of unconstitutionality.
• The administration should consult with its legal services whether it should suspend new convocations linked to those provisions while the Constitutional Court rules.

What should administrations and affected parties do now?

1. Identify if you are a party to ordinary proceeding 436-2022: If your entity or you as an individual are a party to that proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, you have 15 days from July 30, 2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court. This deadline is non-extendable.
2. Audit your own stabilization processes: Administrations must identify how many positions they convened and resolved under the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021, and what their current situation is.
3. Consult with legal services: Assess the risk of nullity and possible scenarios (maintenance of positions, need for new convocation, indemnities) depending on how the Constitutional Court rules.
4. Do not make irreversible decisions about those positions: While the Constitutional Court does not rule, avoid consolidating situations that could be affected by the ruling (promotions, definitive transfers linked to those positions, etc.).
5. Inform affected employees: Stabilized workers have the right to know the situation. Transparent communication reduces internal conflict.
6. Monitor the progress of the proceeding before the Constitutional Court: The ruling could take months or years. Establish a monitoring system to act as soon as there are developments.

Official source

Consult complete regulation in official source

Notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-16545