Key data
| Regulation | Ruling of July 20, 2026, Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, on Royal Decree 1010/2023, of December 5 |
|---|---|
| Publication | September 10, 2026 |
| Entry into force | September 10, 2026 |
| Affected parties | Driving schools, vocational training centers and students obtaining driving licenses linked to VET |
| Category | Regulatory Changes |
| Year | 2026 |
| Annulled provision | Paragraph of article 48 ter of the Regulation governing private driving schools (REPC) |
| Modified regulations | Royal Decree 1295/2003 (REPC) and Royal Decree 818/2009 (General Drivers Regulation) |
| Costs | No costs imposed on any of the parties |
Driving schools operating linked to vocational training centers had a specific problem: their authorization to provide road safety training to VET students automatically expired when that student completed their training cycle. The Supreme Court has eliminated that restriction.
The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its ruling of July 20, 2026, partially upheld the administrative law appeal filed by the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC) against Royal Decree 1010/2023, of December 5. The ruling directly affects the regulatory framework for private driving schools and the General Drivers Regulation.
What does this ruling establish?
Royal Decree 1010/2023 modified two key regulations in the sector:
- The Regulation governing private driving schools (REPC), approved by Royal Decree 1295/2003, of October 17.
- The General Drivers Regulation, approved by Royal Decree 818/2009, of May 8.
Among the modifications introduced by that decree was a paragraph in article 48 ter of the REPC that established that the validity of the authorization granted to a driving school to train VET students would automatically expire upon completion of the student's training at the corresponding VET center.
The CNMC challenged this restriction for being contrary to free competition and service regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled in its favor on this specific point, declaring that paragraph null.
| Aspect | Before (Royal Decree 1010/2023) | After (Supreme Court Ruling, 10/09/2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Authorization validity | Expired upon completion of student training at the VET center | Time limitation is annulled and without legal effect |
| Legal basis | Article 48 ter REPC (annulled paragraph) | Paragraph declared null by the Supreme Court |
| Basis for the restriction | Authorization linked to student's training cycle | Eliminated for being contrary to free competition and service regulations |
Economic and operational impact
The elimination of this restriction has direct consequences for the operations of driving schools working with VET centers:
- Legal certainty in authorizations: Driving schools will no longer automatically lose their authorization to operate with VET students at the end of the training cycle. This eliminates the need to repeatedly renew or renegotiate authorizations.
- Greater competition in the sector: By removing an artificial barrier to entry, more driving schools can compete on equal terms to offer road safety training linked to VET.
- Review of contracts and agreements: Agreements between driving schools and VET centers that were drafted based on the annulled time limitation must be reviewed to adapt to the new framework.
- Administrative procedures: Internal authorization procedures of both parties must be updated to stop applying a restriction that no longer has legal validity.
The ruling does not impose costs on any of the parties, so there is no direct economic impact from the litigation for sector operators.
Who does it affect?
- Driving schools that have or want to obtain authorizations to train students in vocational training cycles with driving license included in the curriculum.
- Vocational training centers (public and private) that offer training cycles that include obtaining a driving license as part of the qualification.
- VET students who obtain or are in the process of obtaining driving licenses linked to their training cycle.
- Managers and directors of driving schools who must review the framework of their current authorizations.
- Legal advisors and sector consultants who manage administrative authorizations in this field.
Practical example
A driving school has an agreement with a VET institute to train students in the Transport and Logistics cycle, which includes obtaining a truck driving license. Under the framework of Royal Decree 1010/2023, the driving school's authorization to operate at that center automatically expired when the last student of the course completed their training.
This forced the driving school to initiate a new authorization process each academic year, with the administrative burden and legal uncertainty that entailed.
Following the Supreme Court ruling of July 20, 2026, that paragraph of article 48 ter of the REPC is annulled. The driving school no longer loses its authorization simply because students complete the cycle. The agreement with the VET center can be maintained on more stable terms, without needing to renew the administrative authorization each year for this reason.
What should companies do now?
- Review current authorizations: Check if any current authorization includes extinction clauses linked to the end of the VET student's training cycle, as that limitation has been annulled.
- Update contracts and agreements with VET centers: Review agreements or contracts signed with institutes or VET centers to remove references to the time limitation declared null.
- Adapt internal administrative procedures: Both driving schools and VET centers must update their authorization management protocols to stop applying a restriction without legal validity.
- Consult with specialized legal counsel: If there are authorizations denied or extinguished under the annulled paragraph, assess with a specialized lawyer whether any administrative action or claim is appropriate.
- Stay alert to subsequent regulatory developments: The partial annulment of Royal Decree 1010/2023 may lead to additional regulatory modifications by the Government to adapt the current text to the ruling.
Frequently asked questions
What exact paragraph has the Supreme Court annulled?
The Supreme Court has declared null the paragraph of article 48 ter of the Regulation governing private driving schools (REPC) that established that the validity of the authorization would expire upon completion of the student's training at the VET center. This provision was part of the modifications introduced by Royal Decree 1010/2023, of December 5.
When does the annulment of the driving school regulation take effect?
The ruling was published on September 10, 2026, the date from which the time limitation declared null ceases to have legal effect. Driving schools and VET centers must adapt their procedures from that same date.
Who challenged Royal Decree 1010/2023 and why?
It was the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC) that filed the administrative law appeal. The CNMC considered that the time restriction on authorization linked to the VET cycle was contrary to free competition and service regulations. The Supreme Court partially upheld that appeal.
Are there sanctions or costs from this ruling for driving schools?
No. The Supreme Court ruling does not impose costs on any of the parties. It also does not establish sanctions for driving schools or VET centers. The effect is exclusively the annulment of the restrictive paragraph of article 48 ter of the REPC.
What should driving schools that already have current VET-linked authorizations do?
They should review whether their current authorizations contain automatic extinction clauses linked to the end of the student's training cycle. If so, that limitation no longer has legal validity. It is recommended to update agreements with VET centers and consult with legal counsel if there are authorizations that were denied or extinguished under that now-annulled provision.
Official source
Consult complete regulation at 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-2026-18908
