Key data
| Regulation | Constitutional unconstitutionality question no. 5959-2026 on Law 20/2021, of December 28, on urgent measures to reduce temporary employment in the public sector |
|---|---|
| Publication | September 28, 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Promoting body | Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha |
| Questioned provisions | Additional provisions sixth and eighth of Law 20/2021 |
| Constitutional articles invoked | Art. 23.2 CE (equal access to public office) and art. 149.1.18 CE (state competence over the legal basis of Public Administrations) |
| Original procedure | Ordinary procedure 514-2022 before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha |
| Deadline to appear | 15 days from publication in the BOE (28/09/2026) |
| Category | Public Sector |
Public employment stabilization processes in Spain are under constitutional scrutiny. The Plenary of the Constitutional Court has admitted for processing constitutional unconstitutionality question no. 5959-2026, raised by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha within the framework of ordinary procedure 514-2022. The object of the challenge is the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021, of December 28, on urgent measures to reduce temporary employment in the public sector.
Admission for processing does not imply that the Constitutional Court has already declared unconstitutionality, but rather that it considers there is a serious and well-founded legal doubt that merits resolution. For Public Administrations with active stabilization processes, this represents a warning signal that cannot be ignored.
What does this regulation establish?
Law 20/2021 was approved to reduce the high rate of temporary employment in Spanish public administration, enabling extraordinary stabilization mechanisms so that long-term temporary employees could consolidate their position. The questioned additional provisions are as follows:
| Provision | Questioned content | Constitutional right invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Sixth additional provision | Extraordinary stabilization mechanism of Law 20/2021 | Art. 23.2 CE — right of equal access to public functions and offices |
| Eighth additional provision | Extraordinary stabilization mechanism of Law 20/2021 | Art. 149.1.18 CE — state competence over the legal basis of Public Administrations |
The core of the constitutional debate is twofold. On one hand, whether these stabilization mechanisms violate the principle of equality in access to public service (art. 23.2 CE), by favoring those who already occupy temporary positions over citizens who have never had access to them. On the other, whether the State has invaded regional competencies by regulating selection processes in such detail, affecting the organizational autonomy of Autonomous Communities and local entities.
Economic and operational impact
The impact of a potential declaration of unconstitutionality would be far-reaching for Public Administrations. Law 20/2021 has been the legal basis for thousands of stabilization calls throughout Spain, both in the General State Administration and in regional and local administrations.
- Ongoing stabilization processes: Those that have not yet concluded could be paralyzed or annulled if the Constitutional Court declares the questioned provisions unconstitutional.
- Already resolved processes: Would generate enormous legal uncertainty about the validity of appointments already made, with potential for mass litigation.
- Convocation costs: Administrations that have invested resources in the preparation and management of these selection processes could see that effort invalidated.
- Affected temporary employees: Those participating in these processes with the expectation of consolidating their position remain in a situation of uncertainty until the Constitutional Court's resolution.
- External candidates: Candidates who have never held temporary positions and who believe that stabilization mechanisms harm them are, in practice, the potential beneficiaries of a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Who does it affect?
- Public Administrations with active stabilization processes called under Law 20/2021 (State, Autonomous Communities, local entities, public universities, autonomous bodies).
- Temporary public employees who participate or have participated in stabilization processes and expect to consolidate their position.
- Candidates and external applicants who apply for positions called under Law 20/2021 or who have challenged these processes for considering them to violate equal access.
- Parties to ordinary procedure 514-2022 before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, who have 15 days from 28/09/2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court.
- HR departments and legal advisors of public entities managing these processes and who must assess the risk of continuing or suspending calls.
Practical example
A regional administration has an ongoing stabilization process with 500 positions called under the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021. The process is in the merit evaluation phase and final lists have not yet been published.
Given the admission for processing of constitutional unconstitutionality question 5959-2026, the legal department of that Administration must assess whether to continue the process or suspend it as a precaution. If the Constitutional Court ends up declaring those provisions unconstitutional, the appointments made could be successfully challenged, generating litigation costs, possible indemnities, and the need to repeat the process under new regulation. If, conversely, the Constitutional Court upholds the constitutionality of the law, the Administration that suspended the process will have incurred unnecessary delays and potential claims from participants.
The correct decision at this time is to obtain specialized legal advice and closely monitor the evolution of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, without making hasty decisions in either direction.
What should Public Administrations do now?
- Identify if they are party to ordinary procedure 514-2022: The parties to that procedure before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha have a deadline of 15 days from 28/09/2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court. Failing to do so means losing the opportunity to intervene in the proceedings.
- Audit active stabilization processes: Review which calls are based on the sixth and/or eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021 and what phase they are in.
- Consult the legal department: Assess the risk of continuing, suspending, or modifying ongoing processes, weighing the consequences in both scenarios (constitutionality or unconstitutionality).
- Inform participants: Communicate to temporary employees and candidates involved the situation of legal uncertainty, without generating unnecessary alarm but with transparency.
- Monitor the Constitutional Court's resolution: Establish an alert system to immediately learn of the Constitutional Court's ruling and act accordingly without delay.
Frequently asked questions
What does it mean that the Constitutional Court admits constitutional unconstitutionality question 5959-2026 for processing?
It means that the Plenary of the Constitutional Court considers that there is a serious and well-founded legal doubt about whether the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021 violate articles 23.2 and 149.1.18 of the Constitution. It does not imply that it has already declared unconstitutionality, but rather that the matter merits formal resolution. Until the Constitutional Court issues a ruling, the law remains in force.
What deadline do the parties have to appear before the Constitutional Court?
The parties to ordinary procedure 514-2022 before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha have 15 days from publication in the BOE on September 28, 2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court. After that deadline expires without appearing, they will lose the opportunity to intervene in the constitutional proceedings.
What happens to already called stabilization processes if the Constitutional Court declares Law 20/2021 unconstitutional?
A declaration of unconstitutionality of the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021 could affect stabilization processes called under those provisions. Ongoing processes could be left without legal basis, and already resolved ones could be subject to judicial challenge. The specific scope would depend on the exact terms of the Constitutional Court's ruling and whether it has retroactive or only prospective effects.
What constitutional rights are at stake in this question?
The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha invokes two constitutional provisions: article 23.2 CE, which guarantees the right of equal access to public functions and offices, and article 149.1.18 CE, which grants the State competence over the legal basis of Public Administrations. The debate is whether the stabilization mechanisms of Law 20/2021 violate equal access and whether they invade the organizational autonomy of Autonomous Communities.
Should Administrations suspend their stabilization processes while the Constitutional Court resolves?
Admission for processing does not automatically require suspension of ongoing processes. However, each Administration must assess with its legal department the risk of continuing, given that a potential declaration of unconstitutionality could invalidate appointments already made. There is no single answer: it depends on the phase of the process, the volume of positions, and the legal criteria adopted.
Official source
Consult complete regulation in official source
Notice: This article is purely informational in nature 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-2026-20003
