Key data
| Regulation | Unconstitutionality appeal no. 1586-2026 against the third final provision of Real Decreto-ley 15/2025, of 2 December |
|---|---|
| Publication | 4 April 2026 |
| Entry into force | Not specified |
| Affected parties | Business owners, self-employed individuals and invoicing software providers subject to Verifactu obligations |
| Category | Tax Updates |
| Challenged regulation | Third final provision of RDL 15/2025, which amended RD 1007/2023 (Verifactu Regulation) |
| Court | Tribunal Constitucional |
The Verifactu adaptation deadlines that your company or your software provider are following could be suspended or directly annulled. Unconstitutionality appeal no. 1586-2026, published on 4 April 2026, challenges the third final provision of the Real Decreto-ley 15/2025, of 2 December, which amended the Verifactu Regulation approved by RD 1007/2023. The central argument: the Government did not have constitutional authorisation to use a decreto-ley for this type of technical amendment.
What does this regulation establish?
The appeal specifically challenges the third final provision of RDL 15/2025, which amended the Regulation establishing the requirements that must be adopted by computer or electronic systems and programmes supporting the invoicing processes of business owners and professionals, approved by RD 1007/2023 of 5 December. This regulation is the legal basis of Verifactu.
The underlying constitutional issue is clear: decretos-ley have material limitations established in the Constitution. They cannot regulate any subject matter. The appeal argues that amending the technical regulation of invoicing systems does not fall within the circumstances of extraordinary and urgent necessity that justify the use of this regulatory instrument.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Challenged regulation | Third final provision of RDL 15/2025, of 2 December |
| Regulation amended by the challenged provision | RD 1007/2023, of 5 December (Verifactu Regulation) |
| Grounds for appeal | Lack of constitutional authorisation to use a decreto-ley on this subject matter |
| Effect if precautionary admission is granted | Possible suspension of the third final provision of RDL 15/2025 |
| Effect if the TC upholds the appeal | Annulment of the amendment; reversion to the previous wording of RD 1007/2023 |
It is relevant to understand that RDL 15/2025 did not only regulate Verifactu: its full title indicates that it also adopted measures to promote the investment activity of local entities and autonomous communities. The third final provision was the one that touched the invoicing regulation, and it is that specific part that is being challenged.
Economic and operational impact
The impact is not theoretical. Companies and software providers have been investing for months in adapting their systems to the technical requirements of Verifactu. A change in the rules of the game has direct consequences:
- Software investments already made or underway could become oversized or misdirected if the previous wording of RD 1007/2023 is reinstated.
- The adaptation deadlines that software providers are communicating to their clients could become void if the TC agrees to the precautionary suspension.
- Invoicing software developers face uncertainty about which version of the regulation they must comply with while the appeal is pending.
- Companies that have already adapted their systems to the version amended by RDL 15/2025 may need to review their compliance if that amendment is annulled.
Regulatory uncertainty has a real cost: it paralyses investment decisions, complicates the planning of technology projects and creates compliance risk for those acting on a legal basis that may change.
Who is affected?
- Business owners and companies required to use invoicing systems compliant with Verifactu.
- Self-employed individuals subject to the requirements of RD 1007/2023 and its amendments.
- Invoicing software providers and developers who are adapting or have already adapted their products to the technical requirements amended by RDL 15/2025.
- Tax advisors and accounting firms advising their clients on the deadlines and requirements for adapting to Verifactu.
- CFOs and finance directors who have budgeted invoicing software investments based on the current deadlines.
Practical example
A mid-sized company has contracted with its ERP provider to adapt its invoicing module to the Verifactu requirements under the version amended by RDL 15/2025. The project is underway and has a delivery deadline linked to the mandatory date established in that amendment.
If the Tribunal Constitucional agrees to the precautionary suspension of the third final provision of RDL 15/2025, the mandatory deadline on which that project is based would be suspended. The company and its provider would need to review whether to continue with the adaptation to the amended version or wait for the appeal to be resolved.
If the TC ultimately upholds the appeal and annuls the amendment, the company would need to verify whether its system complies with the previous wording of RD 1007/2023, which would be reinstated. This could entail additional technical adjustments or, conversely, that some requirements of the amended version are no longer enforceable.
What should companies do now?
- Identify which amendments introduced by RDL 15/2025 affect your invoicing software. Specifically, review what changes the third final provision of RDL 15/2025 introduced compared to the original wording of RD 1007/2023, to understand what is at stake.
- Check with your software provider whether the adaptation deadlines are tied to the version amended by RDL 15/2025. If so, you must be prepared for a possible change of scenario depending on the TC's decision.
- Monitor the Tribunal Constitucional's rulings on this appeal. The admission has already been published. The next relevant milestone is whether the TC agrees or not to the precautionary suspension of the challenged provision.
- Do not completely halt Verifactu adaptation projects. RD 1007/2023 in its original wording remains in force. The uncertainty affects the amendments introduced by RDL 15/2025, not the underlying obligation to comply with Verifactu.
- If you are a software provider, proactively communicate the situation to your clients. Uncertainty over deadlines is a shared risk that must be managed transparently.
Frequently asked questions
What is the unconstitutionality appeal against Verifactu and what could happen?
It is appeal no. 1586-2026, which challenges the third final provision of RDL 15/2025. This provision amended the Verifactu Regulation (RD 1007/2023). If the Tribunal Constitucional upholds it, that amendment would be annulled and the previous wording of the regulation would be reinstated.
Are Verifactu deadlines suspended while the appeal is being resolved?
The admission of the appeal could lead to a precautionary suspension of the third final provision of RDL 15/2025, which would affect the adaptation deadlines for invoicing software. There is no automatic suspension: it depends on the TC expressly agreeing to it.
What changes if the Tribunal Constitucional annuls the third final provision of RDL 15/2025?
If the TC upholds the appeal, the amendment to the Verifactu Regulation (RD 1007/2023) introduced by RDL 15/2025 would become void. The previous wording of the regulation would be reinstated, with the technical obligations and deadlines that were in force before that amendment.
Who is affected by this unconstitutionality appeal regarding Verifactu?
It directly affects business owners, self-employed individuals and invoicing software providers subject to Verifactu obligations. All of them must pay close attention to the outcome, as it could alter the current technical obligations in the area of electronic invoicing.
Why is the constitutionality of RDL 15/2025 being questioned in relation to Verifactu?
The question is whether the Government had constitutional authorisation to use a decreto-ley to amend the technical regulation of Verifactu, given that decretos-ley have material limitations established in the Constitution. The appeal argues that this regulatory route was not appropriate for this type of amendment.
Official source
View the full regulation at the official sourceDisclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, please consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-7634