Key data
| Regulation | Constitutional unconstitutionality question no. 5552-2026 on sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021, of December 28 |
|---|---|
| Publication | September 28, 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Promoting body | TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha (ordinary proceeding 400-2022) |
| Questioned provisions | Sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021 |
| Rights at stake | Art. 23.2 CE (equal access to public functions) and art. 149.1.18 CE (bases of the legal regime of Public Administrations) |
| Deadline to appear | 15 days from publication in the BOE (28/09/2026) |
| Category | Public Sector |
The public employment stabilization processes launched under Law 20/2021, of December 28, face a first-order legal threat. The Plenary of the Constitutional Court has admitted for processing constitutional unconstitutionality question no. 5552-2026, raised by the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha in the framework of ordinary proceeding 400-2022.
What is at issue is whether the sixth and eighth additional provisions of that law violate two constitutional pillars: the right of access under equal conditions to public functions (art. 23.2 CE) and the exclusive competence of the State to establish the bases of the legal regime of Public Administrations (art. 149.1.18 CE).
What does this regulation establish?
The Law 20/2021 was approved with the objective of reducing the high rate of temporality in Spanish public employment, articulating massive stabilization processes so that long-term temporary workers could access permanent positions. The sixth and eighth additional provisions regulated key aspects of those processes.
The TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha considers that those provisions could violate:
- Art. 23.2 CE: the fundamental right of all citizens to access public functions and positions under equal conditions. The criticism points out that the stabilization processes designed by the law would have favored those who already occupied the positions temporarily, to the detriment of other candidates competing under equal conditions.
- Art. 149.1.18 CE: the State's competence to establish the bases of the legal regime of Public Administrations. It questions whether the law respected the distribution of competences between the State and Autonomous Communities.
Admission for processing by the CC Plenary does not imply that the law is unconstitutional, but rather that the Court considers that the question has sufficient legal substance to be examined in depth. The outcome can go in any direction.
Economic and operational impact
The potential impact of this constitutional unconstitutionality question is very significant for Public Administrations and for the thousands of people participating in active stabilization processes:
- Ongoing stabilization processes: all convocations made under the sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021 remain under legal uncertainty until the CC rules.
- Already convened positions: if the CC declares those provisions unconstitutional, the convocations made could be challenged or annulled, forcing Administrations to reconsider the processes.
- Management costs for Public Administrations: uncertainty can paralyze decision-making on new convocations, generate additional litigation, and increase human resources management costs.
- Expectations of candidates: those who have prepared for civil service exams under the rules of these stabilization processes face a situation of legal insecurity about the validity of the process in which they participate.
There is no concrete economic figure associated with this question in the published data, but the volume of positions convened under Law 20/2021 throughout Spain means that the potential impact is large-scale.
Who does it affect?
- Temporary public employees who participate or expect to participate in stabilization processes convened under Law 20/2021.
- Civil service candidates and external candidates who compete for stabilization positions and could see access conditions altered.
- Public Administrations (State, Autonomous Communities, local entities) with active stabilization processes or pending convocations.
- Parties to ordinary proceeding 400-2022 before the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha, who have a deadline of 15 days from September 28, 2026 to appear before the Constitutional Court.
- Legal advisors and HR departments of public entities that must assess the risk to their ongoing convocations.
Practical example
An autonomous administration convened in 2023, under the eighth additional provision of Law 20/2021, a stabilization process for 500 technical staff positions. The process is currently in the resolution phase, with lists of admitted candidates already published.
With the admission for processing of this constitutional unconstitutionality question, that Administration faces three possible scenarios:
- The CC declares the provisions constitutional: the process continues without changes.
- The CC declares the provisions unconstitutional: the 500 convened positions could be subject to judicial challenge, forcing a reconsideration of the process or new civil service exams under different rules.
- The CC issues an interpretive ruling: the process could continue with conditions or qualifications that alter the access rules.
Meanwhile, if any of the parties to ordinary proceeding 400-2022 does not appear within the 15-day deadline, they lose the opportunity to defend their position directly before the CC Plenary.
What should Public Administrations and affected parties do now?
- Verify if you are a party to ordinary proceeding 400-2022: if your entity or you personally are a party to that proceeding before the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha, the deadline to appear before the CC is 15 days from September 28, 2026. Failing to act means losing that procedural opportunity.
- Review active stabilization convocations: identify whether your stabilization processes are specifically based on the sixth and/or eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021. These are the only ones being questioned.
- Consult with specialized legal counsel: assess the risk of challenge to ongoing convocations and whether it is advisable to adopt precautionary or contingency measures.
- Do not preventively paralyze processes: admission for processing does not imply unconstitutionality. Paralyzing processes without legal basis could generate liability for the Administration. Act with prudence, not alarm.
- Monitor the evolution of the case: the CC may take months or years to rule. Establish an alert system to learn of the ruling as soon as it is issued and be able to react in time.
Frequently asked questions
What does it mean that the CC admits this constitutional unconstitutionality question for processing?
It means that the Plenary of the Constitutional Court considers that the doubt raised by the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha has sufficient legal foundation to be examined in depth. It does not imply that Law 20/2021 is unconstitutional: it is the beginning of the analysis process, not the end. The CC can declare the provisions constitutional, unconstitutional, or issue a conditional interpretation.
What specific provisions of Law 20/2021 are in question?
The sixth and eighth additional provisions of Law 20/2021, of December 28, on urgent measures to reduce temporality in public employment. These two provisions, and not the law in its entirety, are those that the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha considers potentially unconstitutional.
What is the deadline to appear before the Constitutional Court?
The parties to ordinary proceeding 400-2022 before the TSJ of Castilla-La Mancha have 15 days from publication in the BOE, which took place on September 28, 2026, to appear before the Constitutional Court. After that deadline, the opportunity to intervene directly in the constitutional proceeding is lost.
Should stabilization processes in progress be paralyzed?
Not necessarily. Admission for processing does not automatically suspend stabilization processes. Administrations must assess with their legal services the specific risk of each convocation, but acting preventively by paralyzing processes without legal basis could generate liability. The recommendation is to monitor the case and have a contingency plan ready.
What constitutional rights are alleged to be violated?
Two are alleged: art. 23.2 CE, which guarantees the right of access under equal conditions to public functions and positions, and art. 149.1.18 CE, which attributes to the State the competence to establish the bases of the legal regime of Public Administrations. The first affects the rights of citizens; the second, the distribution of competences between the State and Autonomous Communities.
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-2026-20002
