Follow-Up to Spanish LO 1/25: Which ADR Options Are Being More Efficient?

Since April 2025, Organic Law 1/25 has been in force in Spain; it requires the claimant to provide evidence of having tried ADR before initiating a civil or commercial lawsuit. We are still in a preliminary phase in the application of this law, and we are seeing divergent decisions from the Courts on the sufficiency of the ADR attempt; and this is creating uncertainty in the legal world.

The courts of Madrid and Barcelona have recently published their criteria to guide the interpretation of these issues. They confirm that no waiver or concession from the creditor is necessary when it sends the other party a communication to comply with the procedural requirement of having tried to resolve the dispute out of court. But they also confirm that a simple request for payment is not enough and that there must be evidence of willingness to negotiate in good faith.

According to point 4 of the criteria published by the courts of Barcelona: “The mere claim or request for extrajudicial payment or compliance, with an announcement of the subsequent exercise of legal actions, does not meet the procedural requirement.” This means that it would not be enough to send a letter claiming payment of a credit and announcing that, if it is not paid, a lawsuit will be filed and that interest and costs will also be included in it.

The courts of Barcelona also clarify that the procedural requirement is met when:

• The plaintiff sends an effective invitation to negotiate with the other party, with a willingness to dialogue about a specific dispute (art. 14 LO 1/2025).

• It is not required to make a proposal or any waiver, only to invite in good faith to a negotiation.

• If the addressee expressly rejects the invitation or remains silent, the requirement is understood to be fulfilled, as long as the sending and receipt can be accredited (by registered mail, burofax, email with acknowledgement, etc.).

During these last six months, before these criteria were published, many claims have been dismissed in limine for not complying with the procedural requirement of LO 1/25, causing great frustration among professionals and clients.

A suitable alternative is a proposal to try mediation. The courts are accepting these proposals as sufficient to comply with LO 1/25. The greatest difficulty sometimes lies in getting the offer delivered to parties who do not wish to be notified, but this problem is also common to the rest of the means prior to the lawsuit and is solved with a declaration that the regulation accepts. And these offers of mediation have two additional advantages: firstly, that if mediation is accepted and an agreement is reached, we are saving a lot of time and money, and reaching a win-win solution that helps preserve future relations between the parties; and, secondly, that if mediation does not succeed, we would still have gained a good stance with regard to the legal costs of the subsequent judicial process.

Therefore, when the circumstances of the case allow it, the best option to avoid any risk of the claim being dismissed in limine would be to propose mediation to comply with the legal requirement.

Jorge Capell

Partner – Dispute Resolution

Main Legal – Madrid