Appeal to RDL 7/2026 on Middle East: what risk do affected companies face

Key data

If your company operates in sectors affected by the Comprehensive Response Plan to the Middle East Crisis, you have a regulatory uncertainty problem that you need to manage now. The Plenary of the Constitutional Court has admitted for processing appeal of unconstitutionality no. 4714-2026, filed by the Xunta de Galicia against the Royal Decree-Law 7/2026, of March 20. The Constitutional Court will examine whether the Government overstepped autonomous competencies or violated other constitutional provisions when approving these measures by decree-law.

This is not a minor procedure. Admission for processing means that the process moves forward and that there is a real risk that part of the regulations you already apply in your company will be annulled or modified.

What does this regulation establish?

The appeal specifically challenges the following articles of RDL 7/2026:

The provisions challenged cover matters such as sectoral measures, specific obligations and special regimes contained in articles 15 to 21 and 29 of the decree. The Xunta argues that the Government would have overstepped autonomous competencies by regulating them through decree-law.

The Constitutional Court must now rule on whether that competency overreach existed. Until there is a judgment, the challenged articles remain mandatory, unless the Court agrees to a precautionary suspension.

Economic and operational impact

The risk for companies is twofold:

• Risk of retroactive regulatory change: if the Constitutional Court annuls any of the 13 challenged articles, the obligations derived from them would become void. Companies that have made investments or operational adaptations to comply with them could have done so in vain.
• Risk of precautionary suspension: during the processing of the appeal, the Court may agree to temporarily suspend the challenged articles. This would alter current obligations immediately, without waiting for the final judgment.

From an operational perspective, companies that have already adapted their processes, contracts, structures or investments to articles 15.1 f), 16 (in its multiple sections), 17, 18.1, 18.2, 21 and 29 should assess whether it is advisable to pause new adaptation investments until the outcome of the constitutional process is known.

There are no concrete economic figures published in the admission for processing of the appeal, but the impact will depend on the sector and the degree of adaptation already carried out by each company.

Who does it affect?

• Companies and self-employed workers subject to the sectoral measures of article 15.1 f) of RDL 7/2026.
• Operators affected by the special regimes and obligations of the sections of article 16 (sections 1, 2, 5, 8 second paragraph, 9, 10 and 11).
• Sectors regulated by articles 17, 18.1 and 18.2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Entities or companies with obligations derived from articles 21 and 29 of the decree.
• Companies with headquarters or activity in Galicia, which may be especially affected by the Xunta's position in this competency conflict.
• Legal advisors, CFOs and managers who manage regulatory compliance for companies exposed to the Comprehensive Plan.

Practical example

Imagine an industrial company in Galicia that, to comply with the obligations of article 16.2 of RDL 7/2026, has modified its contracts with suppliers and has implemented a new internal control procedure. It has invested time and resources in that adaptation.

If the Constitutional Court agrees to a precautionary suspension of article 16.2 during the processing of the appeal, that obligation would temporarily cease to be in force. The company would have to decide whether to reverse the changes, maintain them provisionally or wait for the final judgment before acting.

If the Constitutional Court finally annuls the article, the obligation would disappear permanently. If it confirms it, the adaptation already made will have been correct and necessary. The key is not to make irreversible decisions on additional investment until there is more clarity on the outcome of the process.

What should companies do now?

1. Identify which challenged articles affect you: review whether your company has obligations derived from articles 15.1 f), 16.1, 16.2, 16.5, 16.8 (second paragraph), 16.9, 16.10, 16.11, 17, 18.1, 18.2, 21 or 29 of RDL 7/2026.
2. Maintain current compliance: the challenged articles remain in force as long as there is no precautionary suspension. Do not stop complying with them because the appeal exists.
3. Pause new adaptation investments: if you were planning to make additional investments to comply with the challenged articles, consider waiting for more clarity on the outcome of the constitutional process.
4. Activate alerts on the process: the Constitutional Court may agree to a precautionary suspension at any time. Set up alerts to monitor the progress of appeal no. 4714-2026.
5. Consult with your legal advisor: if your exposure to the challenged articles is significant, request a specific risk analysis for your company and the options available in case of suspension or annulment.
6. Document the adaptations already made: in case of annulment, having clear documentation of the costs and changes made may be relevant for claims or contractual adjustments.

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-2026-16544