Agency and distribution agreements. Phrases to avoid when ending a business relationship without a written contract

11 Ottobre 2025

  • Spagna
  • Agenzia
  • Contratti
  • Distribuzione
  • Contenzioso

The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

Man in the Middle scam: how it works

This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

  • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
  • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
  • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

 

This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

The new features of this regulation are

  • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
  • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
  • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

 

In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

  • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
  • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

  • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
  • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

  • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
  • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

  • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
  • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

ADR as a procedural requirement

One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

  • Fundamental rights,
  • Urgent measures concerning minors,
  • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
  • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
  • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
  • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

Types of ADR recognized

The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

  • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
  • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
  • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
  • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
  • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
  • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

Key characteristics of ADR

  • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
  • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
  • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
  • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

Advantages of ADR

The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

  • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
  • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
  • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
  • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
  • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

Criticisms and challenges

Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

  • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
  • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
  • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
  • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

Conclusion

The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

Legal Document Drafting

Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

Analysis of large volumes of data

The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

Improved legal research

Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

Legal Argument Generation

Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

Automated Legal Advice

Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

Personalized legal advice

Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

Legal Scenario Simulation

Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

Automation of repetitive tasks

The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

Optimization of internal processes

Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

Lack of human discernment

Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

Risk of algorithmic bias

Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

Data security and privacy

The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

Job displacement

As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

Ethical complexity in decision making

Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

Costs associated with implementation

From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

Cultural resistance and adaptation

Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

 

a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

 

b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

 

c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

 

Conclusion

The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

Ignacio Alonso

Aree di attività

  • Agenzia
  • Diritto societario
  • Distribuzione
  • Franchising
Contatta Ignacio

Scrivi a Ignacio





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Come Costituire una Società In Spagna

    25 Giugno 2025

    • Spagna
    • Diritto societario

    The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

    In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

    There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

    Man in the Middle scam: how it works

    This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

    • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
    • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
    • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

     

    This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

    The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

    The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

    Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

    The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

    The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

    This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

    In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

    The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

    Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

    In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

    In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

    It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

    Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

    And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

    The new features of this regulation are

    • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
    • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
    • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

    In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

    This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

    In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

    In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

    It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

    The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

    The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

    Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

    ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

    ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

    ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

    ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

    Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

    ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

    ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

    ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

     

    In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

    In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

    Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

    Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

    Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

    • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
    • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

    La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

    Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

    • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
    • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

    Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

    • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
    • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

    Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

    L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

    Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

    Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

    Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

    • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
    • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

    Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

    Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

    L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

    La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

    La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

    Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

    La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

    Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

    Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

    La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

    Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

    L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

    L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

    Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

    La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

    Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

    Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

    L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

    Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

    La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

    Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

    Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

    La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

    L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

    L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

    Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

    Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

    Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

    Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

    La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

    L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

    Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

    Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

    La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

    Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

    A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

    La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

    La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

    Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

    La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

    Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

    L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

    Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

    La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

    La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

    Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

    In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

    The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

    Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

    In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

    What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

    ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

    The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

    ADR as a procedural requirement

    One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
    However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

    • Fundamental rights,
    • Urgent measures concerning minors,
    • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
    • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
    • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
    • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

    This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

    Types of ADR recognized

    The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

    • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
    • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
    • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
    • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
    • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
    • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

    Key characteristics of ADR

    • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
    • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
    • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
    • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

    Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

    To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

    In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

    Advantages of ADR

    The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

    • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
    • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
    • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
    • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
    • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

    Criticisms and challenges

    Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

    • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
    • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
    • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
    • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

    Conclusion

    The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

    Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

    Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

    A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

    Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

    Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

    Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

    The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

    Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

    Legal Document Drafting

    Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

    Analysis of large volumes of data

    The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

    Improved legal research

    Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

    Legal Argument Generation

    Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

    Automated Legal Advice

    Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

    Personalized legal advice

    Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

    Legal Scenario Simulation

    Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

    Automation of repetitive tasks

    The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

    Optimization of internal processes

    Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

    In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

    While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

    Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

    While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

    Lack of human discernment

    Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

    Risk of algorithmic bias

    Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

    Data security and privacy

    The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

    Job displacement

    As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

    Ethical complexity in decision making

    Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

    Costs associated with implementation

    From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

    Cultural resistance and adaptation

    Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

    In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

    The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

    The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

    As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

    In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

    The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

    Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

    Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

    The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

    Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

    It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

    Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

    Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

    The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

    Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

    Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

    Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

    A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

    The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

    How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

    The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

     

    a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

    The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

    It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

     

    b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

    Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

    In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

     

    c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

    An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

     

    Conclusion

    The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

    An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

    To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

    In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

    FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

    Javier Gaspar Álvarez-Novoa

    Aree di attività

    • Arte
    • Contratti
    • Diritto societario
    • Recupero credito
    • Investimenti stranieri
    Contatta Javier

    Scrivi a Javier





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      I Mezzi Adeguati di Risoluzione delle Controversie in Via Non Giurisdizionale: Un Nuovo Paradigma per la Giustizia Spagnola

      5 Giugno 2025

      • Spagna
      • Contenzioso
      • Mediazione

      The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

      In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

      There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

      Man in the Middle scam: how it works

      This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

      • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
      • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
      • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

       

      This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

      The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

      The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

      Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

      The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

      The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

      This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

      In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

      The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

      Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

      In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

      In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

      It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

      Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

      And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

      The new features of this regulation are

      • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
      • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
      • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

      In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

      This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

      In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

      In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

      It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

      The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

      The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

      Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

      ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

      ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

      ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

      ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

      Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

      ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

      ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

      ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

       

      In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

      In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

      Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

      Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

      Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

      • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
      • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

      La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

      Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

      • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
      • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

      Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

      • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
      • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

      Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

      L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

      Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

      Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

      Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

      • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
      • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

      Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

      Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

      L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

      La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

      La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

      Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

      La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

      Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

      Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

      La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

      Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

      L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

      L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

      Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

      La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

      Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

      Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

      L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

      Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

      La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

      Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

      Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

      La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

      L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

      L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

      Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

      Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

      Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

      Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

      La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

      L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

      Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

      Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

      La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

      Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

      A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

      La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

      La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

      Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

      La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

      Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

      L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

      Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

      La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

      La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

      Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

      In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

      The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

      Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

      In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

      What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

      ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

      The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

      ADR as a procedural requirement

      One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
      However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

      • Fundamental rights,
      • Urgent measures concerning minors,
      • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
      • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
      • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
      • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

      This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

      Types of ADR recognized

      The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

      • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
      • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
      • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
      • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
      • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
      • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

      Key characteristics of ADR

      • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
      • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
      • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
      • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

      Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

      To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

      In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

      Advantages of ADR

      The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

      • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
      • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
      • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
      • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
      • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

      Criticisms and challenges

      Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

      • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
      • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
      • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
      • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

      Conclusion

      The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

      Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

      Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

      A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

      Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

      Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

      Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

      The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

      Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

      Legal Document Drafting

      Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

      Analysis of large volumes of data

      The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

      Improved legal research

      Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

      Legal Argument Generation

      Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

      Automated Legal Advice

      Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

      Personalized legal advice

      Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

      Legal Scenario Simulation

      Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

      Automation of repetitive tasks

      The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

      Optimization of internal processes

      Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

      In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

      While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

      Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

      While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

      Lack of human discernment

      Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

      Risk of algorithmic bias

      Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

      Data security and privacy

      The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

      Job displacement

      As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

      Ethical complexity in decision making

      Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

      Costs associated with implementation

      From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

      Cultural resistance and adaptation

      Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

      In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

      The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

      The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

      As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

      In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

      The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

      Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

      Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

      The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

      Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

      It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

      Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

      Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

      The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

      Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

      Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

      Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

      A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

      The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

      How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

      The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

       

      a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

      The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

      It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

       

      b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

      Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

      In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

       

      c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

      An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

       

      Conclusion

      The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

      An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

      To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

      In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

      FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

      Angel Iglesias Molero

      Aree di attività

      • Intelligenza artificiale
      • Contratti
      • Diritto societario
      • Investimenti
      • Start-up
      Contatta Angel

      Scrivi a Angel





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        Spain | Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for litigation

        6 Gennaio 2025

        • Spagna
        • Mediazione
        • Contenzioso

        The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

        In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

        There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

        Man in the Middle scam: how it works

        This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

        • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
        • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
        • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

         

        This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

        The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

        The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

        Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

        The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

        The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

        This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

        In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

        The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

        Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

        In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

        In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

        It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

        Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

        And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

        The new features of this regulation are

        • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
        • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
        • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

        In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

        This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

        In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

        In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

        It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

        The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

        The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

        Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

        ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

        ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

        ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

        ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

        Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

        ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

        ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

        ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

         

        In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

        In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

        Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

        Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

        Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

        • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
        • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

        La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

        Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

        • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
        • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

        Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

        • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
        • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

        Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

        L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

        Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

        Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

        Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

        • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
        • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

        Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

        Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

        L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

        La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

        La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

        Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

        La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

        Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

        Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

        La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

        Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

        L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

        L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

        Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

        La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

        Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

        Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

        L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

        Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

        La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

        Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

        Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

        La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

        L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

        L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

        Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

        Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

        Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

        Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

        La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

        L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

        Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

        Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

        La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

        Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

        A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

        La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

        La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

        Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

        La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

        Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

        L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

        Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

        La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

        La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

        Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

        In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

        The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

        Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

        In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

        What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

        ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

        The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

        ADR as a procedural requirement

        One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
        However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

        • Fundamental rights,
        • Urgent measures concerning minors,
        • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
        • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
        • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
        • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

        This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

        Types of ADR recognized

        The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

        • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
        • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
        • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
        • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
        • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
        • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

        Key characteristics of ADR

        • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
        • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
        • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
        • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

        Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

        To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

        In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

        Advantages of ADR

        The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

        • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
        • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
        • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
        • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
        • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

        Criticisms and challenges

        Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

        • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
        • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
        • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
        • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

        Conclusion

        The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

        Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

        Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

        A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

        Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

        Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

        Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

        The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

        Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

        Legal Document Drafting

        Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

        Analysis of large volumes of data

        The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

        Improved legal research

        Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

        Legal Argument Generation

        Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

        Automated Legal Advice

        Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

        Personalized legal advice

        Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

        Legal Scenario Simulation

        Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

        Automation of repetitive tasks

        The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

        Optimization of internal processes

        Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

        In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

        While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

        Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

        While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

        Lack of human discernment

        Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

        Risk of algorithmic bias

        Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

        Data security and privacy

        The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

        Job displacement

        As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

        Ethical complexity in decision making

        Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

        Costs associated with implementation

        From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

        Cultural resistance and adaptation

        Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

        In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

        The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

        The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

        As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

        In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

        The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

        Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

        Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

        The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

        Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

        It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

        Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

        Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

        The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

        Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

        Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

        Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

        A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

        The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

        How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

        The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

         

        a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

        The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

        It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

         

        b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

        Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

        In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

         

        c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

        An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

         

        Conclusion

        The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

        An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

        To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

        In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

        FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

        Ignacio Alonso

        Aree di attività

        • Agenzia
        • Diritto societario
        • Distribuzione
        • Franchising
        Contatta Ignacio

        Scrivi a Ignacio





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

          Spain – Generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector

          30 Luglio 2024

          • Spagna
          • Intelligenza artificiale

          The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

          In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

          There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

          Man in the Middle scam: how it works

          This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

          • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
          • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
          • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

           

          This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

          The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

          The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

          Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

          The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

          The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

          This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

          In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

          The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

          Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

          In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

          In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

          It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

          Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

          And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

          The new features of this regulation are

          • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
          • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
          • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

          In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

          This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

          In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

          In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

          It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

          The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

          The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

          Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

          ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

          ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

          ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

          ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

          Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

          ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

          ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

          ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

           

          In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

          In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

          Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

          Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

          Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

          • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
          • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

          La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

          Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

          • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
          • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

          Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

          • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
          • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

          Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

          L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

          Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

          Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

          Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

          • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
          • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

          Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

          Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

          L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

          La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

          La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

          Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

          La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

          Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

          Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

          La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

          Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

          L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

          L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

          Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

          La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

          Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

          Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

          L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

          Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

          La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

          Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

          Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

          La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

          L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

          L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

          Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

          Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

          Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

          Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

          La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

          L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

          Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

          Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

          La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

          Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

          A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

          La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

          La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

          Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

          La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

          Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

          L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

          Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

          La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

          La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

          Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

          In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

          The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

          Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

          In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

          What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

          ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

          The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

          ADR as a procedural requirement

          One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
          However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

          • Fundamental rights,
          • Urgent measures concerning minors,
          • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
          • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
          • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
          • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

          This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

          Types of ADR recognized

          The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

          • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
          • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
          • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
          • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
          • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
          • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

          Key characteristics of ADR

          • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
          • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
          • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
          • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

          Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

          To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

          In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

          Advantages of ADR

          The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

          • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
          • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
          • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
          • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
          • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

          Criticisms and challenges

          Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

          • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
          • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
          • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
          • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

          Conclusion

          The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

          Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

          Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

          A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

          Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

          Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

          Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

          The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

          Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

          Legal Document Drafting

          Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

          Analysis of large volumes of data

          The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

          Improved legal research

          Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

          Legal Argument Generation

          Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

          Automated Legal Advice

          Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

          Personalized legal advice

          Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

          Legal Scenario Simulation

          Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

          Automation of repetitive tasks

          The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

          Optimization of internal processes

          Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

          In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

          While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

          Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

          While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

          Lack of human discernment

          Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

          Risk of algorithmic bias

          Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

          Data security and privacy

          The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

          Job displacement

          As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

          Ethical complexity in decision making

          Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

          Costs associated with implementation

          From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

          Cultural resistance and adaptation

          Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

          In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

          The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

          The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

          As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

          In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

          The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

          Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

          Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

          The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

          Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

          It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

          Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

          Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

          The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

          Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

          Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

          Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

          A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

          The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

          How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

          The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

           

          a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

          The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

          It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

           

          b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

          Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

          In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

           

          c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

          An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

           

          Conclusion

          The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

          An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

          To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

          In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

          FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

          Javier Gaspar Álvarez-Novoa

          Aree di attività

          • Arte
          • Contratti
          • Diritto societario
          • Recupero credito
          • Investimenti stranieri
          Contatta Javier

          Scrivi a Javier





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            Spain – The Spanish sentence on the European super league: everyone is happy

            26 Luglio 2024

            • Spagna
            • Antitrust

            The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

            In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

            There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

            Man in the Middle scam: how it works

            This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

            • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
            • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
            • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

             

            This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

            The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

            The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

            Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

            The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

            The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

            This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

            In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

            The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

            Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

            In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

            In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

            It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

            Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

            And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

            The new features of this regulation are

            • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
            • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
            • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

            In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

            This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

            In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

            In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

            It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

            The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

            The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

            Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

            ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

            ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

            ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

            ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

            Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

            ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

            ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

            ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

             

            In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

            In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

            Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

            Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

            Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

            • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
            • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

            La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

            Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

            • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
            • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

            Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

            • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
            • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

            Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

            L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

            Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

            Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

            Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

            • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
            • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

            Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

            Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

            L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

            La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

            La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

            Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

            Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

            Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

            La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

            Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

            L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

            L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

            Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

            La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

            Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

            Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

            L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

            Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

            La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

            Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

            Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

            La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

            L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

            L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

            Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

            Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

            Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

            Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

            La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

            L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

            Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

            Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

            La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

            A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

            La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

            La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

            Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

            Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

            L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

            Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

            La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

            La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

            In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

            The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

            Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

            In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

            What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

            ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

            The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

            ADR as a procedural requirement

            One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
            However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

            • Fundamental rights,
            • Urgent measures concerning minors,
            • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
            • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
            • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
            • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

            This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

            Types of ADR recognized

            The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

            • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
            • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
            • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
            • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
            • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
            • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

            Key characteristics of ADR

            • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
            • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
            • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
            • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

            Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

            To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

            In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

            Advantages of ADR

            The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

            • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
            • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
            • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
            • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
            • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

            Criticisms and challenges

            Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

            • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
            • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
            • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
            • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

            Conclusion

            The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

            Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

            Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

            A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

            Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

            Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

            Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

            The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

            Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

            Legal Document Drafting

            Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

            Analysis of large volumes of data

            The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

            Improved legal research

            Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

            Legal Argument Generation

            Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

            Automated Legal Advice

            Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

            Personalized legal advice

            Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

            Legal Scenario Simulation

            Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

            Automation of repetitive tasks

            The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

            Optimization of internal processes

            Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

            In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

            While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

            Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

            While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

            Lack of human discernment

            Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

            Risk of algorithmic bias

            Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

            Data security and privacy

            The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

            Job displacement

            As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

            Ethical complexity in decision making

            Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

            Costs associated with implementation

            From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

            Cultural resistance and adaptation

            Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

            In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

            The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

            The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

            As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

            In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

            The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

            Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

            Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

            The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

            Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

            It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

            Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

            Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

            The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

            Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

            Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

            Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

            A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

            The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

            How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

            The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

             

            a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

            The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

            It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

             

            b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

            Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

            In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

             

            c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

            An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

             

            Conclusion

            The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

            An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

            To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

            In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

            FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

            Javier Gaspar

            Aree di attività

            • Arbitrato
            • Distribuzione
            • Franchising
            • Contenzioso
            • Sport
            Contatta Javier

            Scrivi a Javier





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

              Spain – Can an influencer be considered a “commercial agent”?

              18 Giugno 2024

              • Spagna
              • Agenzia
              • Distribuzione

              The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

              In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

              There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

              Man in the Middle scam: how it works

              This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

              • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
              • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
              • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

               

              This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

              The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

              The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

              Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

              The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

              The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

              This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

              In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

              The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

              Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

              In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

              In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

              It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

              Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

              And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

              The new features of this regulation are

              • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
              • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
              • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

              In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

              This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

              In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

              In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

              It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

              The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

              The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

              Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

              ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

              ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

              ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

              ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

              Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

              ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

              ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

              ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

               

              In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

              In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

              Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

              Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

              Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

              • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
              • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

              La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

              Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

              • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
              • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

              Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

              • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
              • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

              Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

              L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

              Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

              Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

              Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

              • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
              • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

              Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

              Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

              L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

              La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

              La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

              Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

              La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

              Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

              Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

              La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

              Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

              L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

              L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

              Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

              La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

              Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

              Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

              L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

              Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

              La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

              Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

              Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

              La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

              L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

              L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

              Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

              Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

              Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

              Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

              La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

              L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

              Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

              Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

              La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

              Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

              A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

              La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

              La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

              Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

              La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

              Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

              L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

              Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

              La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

              La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

              Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

              In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

              The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

              Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

              In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

              What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

              ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

              The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

              ADR as a procedural requirement

              One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
              However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

              • Fundamental rights,
              • Urgent measures concerning minors,
              • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
              • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
              • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
              • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

              This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

              Types of ADR recognized

              The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

              • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
              • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
              • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
              • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
              • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
              • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

              Key characteristics of ADR

              • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
              • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
              • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
              • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

              Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

              To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

              In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

              Advantages of ADR

              The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

              • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
              • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
              • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
              • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
              • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

              Criticisms and challenges

              Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

              • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
              • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
              • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
              • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

              Conclusion

              The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

              Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

              Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

              A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

              Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

              Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

              Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

              The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

              Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

              Legal Document Drafting

              Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

              Analysis of large volumes of data

              The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

              Improved legal research

              Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

              Legal Argument Generation

              Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

              Automated Legal Advice

              Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

              Personalized legal advice

              Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

              Legal Scenario Simulation

              Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

              Automation of repetitive tasks

              The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

              Optimization of internal processes

              Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

              In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

              While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

              Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

              While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

              Lack of human discernment

              Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

              Risk of algorithmic bias

              Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

              Data security and privacy

              The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

              Job displacement

              As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

              Ethical complexity in decision making

              Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

              Costs associated with implementation

              From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

              Cultural resistance and adaptation

              Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

              In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

              The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

              The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

              As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

              In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

              The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

              Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

              Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

              The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

              Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

              It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

              Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

              Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

              The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

              Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

              Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

              Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

              A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

              The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

              How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

              The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

               

              a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

              The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

              It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

               

              b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

              Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

              In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

               

              c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

              An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

               

              Conclusion

              The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

              An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

              To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

              In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

              FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

              Ignacio Alonso

              Aree di attività

              • Agenzia
              • Diritto societario
              • Distribuzione
              • Franchising
              Contatta Ignacio

              Scrivi a Ignacio





                Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

                Spain – The agent’s right to information after the conclusion of his contract

                15 Aprile 2024

                • Spagna
                • Distribuzione

                The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

                In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

                There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

                Man in the Middle scam: how it works

                This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

                • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
                • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
                • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

                 

                This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

                The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

                The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

                Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

                The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

                The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

                This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

                In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

                The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

                Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

                In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

                In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

                It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

                Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

                And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

                The new features of this regulation are

                • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
                • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
                • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

                In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

                This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

                In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

                In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

                It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

                The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

                The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

                Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

                ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

                ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

                ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

                ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

                Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

                ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

                ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

                ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

                 

                In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

                In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

                Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

                Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

                Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

                • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
                • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

                La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

                Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

                • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
                • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

                Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

                • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
                • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

                Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

                L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

                Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

                Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

                Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

                • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
                • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

                Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

                Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

                L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

                La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

                La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

                Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

                La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

                Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

                Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

                La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

                Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

                L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

                L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

                Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

                La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

                Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

                Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

                L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

                Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

                La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

                Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

                Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

                La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

                L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

                L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

                Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

                Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

                Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

                Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

                La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

                L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

                Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

                Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

                La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

                Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

                A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

                La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

                La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

                Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

                La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

                Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

                L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

                Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

                La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

                La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

                Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

                In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

                The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

                Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

                In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

                What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

                ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

                The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

                ADR as a procedural requirement

                One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
                However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

                • Fundamental rights,
                • Urgent measures concerning minors,
                • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
                • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
                • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
                • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

                This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

                Types of ADR recognized

                The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

                • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
                • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
                • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
                • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
                • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
                • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

                Key characteristics of ADR

                • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
                • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
                • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
                • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

                Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

                To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

                In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

                Advantages of ADR

                The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

                • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
                • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
                • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
                • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
                • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

                Criticisms and challenges

                Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

                • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
                • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
                • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
                • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

                Conclusion

                The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

                Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

                Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

                A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

                Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

                Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

                Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

                The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

                Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

                Legal Document Drafting

                Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

                Analysis of large volumes of data

                The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

                Improved legal research

                Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

                Legal Argument Generation

                Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

                Automated Legal Advice

                Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

                Personalized legal advice

                Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

                Legal Scenario Simulation

                Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

                Automation of repetitive tasks

                The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

                Optimization of internal processes

                Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

                In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

                While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

                Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

                While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

                Lack of human discernment

                Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

                Risk of algorithmic bias

                Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

                Data security and privacy

                The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

                Job displacement

                As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

                Ethical complexity in decision making

                Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

                Costs associated with implementation

                From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

                Cultural resistance and adaptation

                Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

                In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

                The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

                The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

                As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

                In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

                The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

                Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

                Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

                The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

                Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

                It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

                Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

                Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

                The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

                Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

                Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

                Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

                A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

                The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

                How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

                The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

                 

                a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

                The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

                It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

                 

                b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

                Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

                In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

                 

                c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

                An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

                 

                Conclusion

                The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

                An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

                To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

                In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

                FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

                Ignacio Alonso

                Aree di attività

                • Agenzia
                • Diritto societario
                • Distribuzione
                • Franchising
                Contatta Ignacio

                Scrivi a Ignacio





                  Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                  Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

                  Spain – Is it possible to advance payment of customer indemnity in agency contracts?

                  5 Marzo 2024

                  • Spagna
                  • Agenzia

                  The increase in so-called cybercrime in recent years is so significant that it requires strong legislative and judicial responses. Losses from online fraud in Europe exceed $100 billion, according to Nasdaq Ventures, of which $5 billion correspond to Spain.

                  In Spain, 192,375 cases of computer fraud were reported in 2019, but by 2023 this figure had risen to 427,448. According to the latest official data available, computer fraud accounts for 90.4% of all cybercrimes, with growth of 378% between 2016 and 2023.

                  There are many different types of computer fraud, and they are named in English (after all, the lingua franca of our time), including, among other ingenious methods used by skilled fraudsters, those with curious and amusing names (except for those who suffer from them) such as phishing, pharming, juice jacking, tabnabbing, bluesnarfing, catfishing, spoofing, vishing, smishing, whaling, carding, and the one we are interested in today, man in the middle (MITM).

                  Man in the Middle scam: how it works

                  This MITM fraud involves intercepting communications between two devices connected to a network, allowing the attacker to alter and divert messages exchanged between users. The fraudster intercepts a communication in which one user requests a payment from another and then modifies the IBAN of the bank account to which the transfer should be made in order to obtain the money. The process generally unfolds as follows:

                  • Without the company noticing, an attacker intercepts and manipulates an email, changing the IBAN number of the account to which the payment should be made.
                  • The cybercriminal impersonates the supplier, sending the message from an email address that is almost identical to the original, but with a slight alteration that is almost imperceptible.
                  • The receiving company, trusting the authenticity of the message, makes the transfer to the fraudulent account.

                   

                  This results in a transfer of assets to the detriment of the person ordering the transfer and in favor of the cyber thief, so that when the person ordering the transfer notices the error, their first reaction is to try to contact the receiving bank in the hope that the funds can be blocked in time. However, in most cases, the cybercriminal has been quicker: the money has already been transferred to another account or withdrawn, leaving little room for maneuvering, except for the initiation of legal proceedings, which we will discuss below.

                  The immediate question is what responsibility the bank that has received the transfer order from the deceived user and credits the cyber fraudster’s account with the amount in question has in cases where the payer identifies not only the (fraudulent) IBAN but also the name of the beneficiary of the payment order, which obviously does not match the name of the holder of the bank account receiving the funds.

                  The common-sense answer would be that the bank receiving the transfer should confirm that the holder of the account to which the funds are credited and the individual or entity identified as the beneficiary in the transfer order match; if this is not the case, it should suspend the payment and request clarification from the payer. However, this is not the case in light of EU legislation and its transposition into Spanish law, as we will see below.

                  Until October 9, the European banking system operated under the premise that the validity of a transfer was based exclusively on the correctness of the IBAN. In other words, if the account number was correct, the transaction was considered valid, even if the beneficiary’s name did not match. This practice has led to numerous cases of fraud, unintentional errors, and loss of funds, especially in instant transfers, where speed can compromise security.

                  The most reasonable option for the defrauded payer to recover their money is to sue the bank receiving the payment order (with which they have no contractual relationship) for non-contractual liability under Article 1124 of the Civil Code; in fact, criminal proceedings against the account holder, who is usually referred to in slang as a “mule,” do not usually have a satisfactory outcome, both because the bird usually flies away and because of its lack of solvency.

                  The case law of the Provincial Courts has been divided between rulings that strictly and faithfully applied Article 59 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on payment services and other urgent financial measures, dismissing the claims of those defrauded, and others in which arguments were sought under the premise of lack of diligence to condemn the bank to compensate the payer.

                  This has led to the establishment of quasi-objective liability for banks in relation to digital fraud, imposing a higher standard of diligence on them and transferring the risk inherent in online banking to them, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the customer. This line of reasoning, which has been developed from lower court rulings (AP Madrid 178/2015; AP Alicante 107/2018; AP Valencia 212/2021) to the Supreme Court itself (STS 571/2025, among others), is in line with the idea that it is up to the bank to prove that its systems were secure, up to date, and sufficient to prevent the crime from being committed.

                  In this context, the concept of bonus argentarius takes on renewed relevance. This is a principle that was included in Law 57/68 to protect home buyers in the real estate sector, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that it can also be applied to other financial investments. This means that, in the event of losses due to negligence on the part of the financial institution, the customer can file a claim under Law 57/68 and hold the institution liable.

                  The bonus argentarius is based on the presumption of fault on the part of the financial institution, which means that even if the customer has no concrete evidence of negligence, it is assumed due to the duty of care that the institution must exercise in the management of investments.

                  Based on this principle, the diligence required of financial professionals is not that of the average trader or pater familias, but that of a qualified expert who assumes the obligation to protect the funds entrusted to them by implementing “necessary and renewable” security mechanisms. This implies not only maintaining basic technical measures for enhanced authentication, but also proactively adopting internationally recognized anti-fraud solutions, such as name-IBAN verification (Confirmation of Payee or IBAN-Naam Check), which have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions.

                  In line with that doctrine and case law, it can be said that the omission of beneficiary verification measures today constitutes a breach of the contractual duty of diligence and good faith (Articles 1104 and 1258 of the Civil Code), giving rise to civil liability for the damage caused, such that MITM fraud cannot be considered a residual risk attributable to the customer, but rather a systemic security failure attributable to the financial institution, as the designer and custodian of the electronic payment channel.

                  In this state of affairs, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling of March 27, 2025, opted for the alternative of strict application of Article 59, arguing that “if the payment service user provides additional information to that required (specification of the information or unique identifier that the payment service user must provide for the correct initiation or execution of a payment order), the payment service provider shall only be liable for the execution of payment transactions in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user… and that the liability of the payment service provider, both at Community and national level, is such that it fulfills its obligation by executing the payment transaction in accordance with the unique identifier, without the addition of further information implying a higher standard of diligence

                  It is true that, in conclusion, the Supreme Court offered a glimmer of hope to defrauded users when it stated that “the interpretation set out above does not exempt the payment service provider from liability when circumstances, unrelated to the provision of additional data, are found to have contributed to the defective execution of the transaction, either because an additional requirement or demand (e.g., the identification of the beneficiary), or because the payment service provider of the payer or the beneficiary had taken advantage of the error for their own benefit, or because, once the existence of the error had been communicated without delay, one or the other had not taken the measures required by the diligence of an expert trader to allow retroaction or, where appropriate, to minimize the damage.”

                  Regulation (EU) 2024/886: a paradigm shift

                  And in this scenario fraught with doubts, Regulation (EU) 2024/886 bursts onto the scene, representing a 180-degree turn and a paradigm shift: the new European Regulation, approved in April 2024 and coming into force on October 9, 2025, establishes a clear obligation for banks: they must verify that the name of the beneficiary provided by the payer matches the IBAN holder before executing an immediate transfer in euros.

                  The new features of this regulation are

                  • mandatory application to all instant transfers within the SEPA area,
                  • the new name matching system: if there is a discrepancy between the name and the IBAN, the bank must alert the customer before executing the transaction, and
                  • increased liability for financial institutions in the event of fraud or error due to lack of verification.

                  In short, the aim is to reduce the risk of fraud, protect consumers, and increase confidence in digital payments.

                  This means that Law 19/2018, which regulates payment services in Spain and does not require verification of the beneficiary’s identity, is now outdated, underscoring the need for a national legislative review to harmonize the legal framework with European requirements.

                  In conclusion, the obligation to verify the beneficiary of transfers represents a significant step forward in consumer protection and the fight against financial fraud. Regulation (EU) 2024/886 marks a turning point in banking operations, imposing an active responsibility on institutions to ensure the authenticity of transfers.

                  In any case, the question remains open regarding the solution to MITM frauds executed before October 9, 2025, and the responsibility of the banking institution. For the time being, the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of March 27 closes the door to claims against banks, but it cannot be ruled out that the entry into force of Regulation 2024/886 and the paradigm shift will lead to a rethinking of the Supreme Court’s position in line with the quasi-objective liability that lower courts have been maintaining. We will have to wait and see, but such a change would be a great success for bank users who have suffered from this MITM fraud and all other types of cyber fraud.

                  It is quite common for business relationships with agents or distributors to last for years without any signed documents. And be careful, because we know that a contract can exist even verbally.

                  The absence of a written contract will add difficulties in the event of a possible claim, so what you do between the decision to terminate, and the moment of the claim is very important. Remember: ‘anything you write will be used against you’.

                  The decision to terminate a business relationship is a very delicate moment to which, for some reason, solicitors are not invited. Here are some examples (all real) in which companies or employees with the best of intentions wrote to the agent/distributor. All of them were subsequently very damaging to the company:

                  Saying ‘We are terminating our business relationship’ when the strategy will be to argue that no such business relationship exists, but rather that there are separate and linked contracts (e.g., supply rather than ongoing distribution contract; very significant compensation consequences).

                  ‘You no longer represent our company’, which may be evidence that you did so before.

                  ‘As of day X, you may no longer act on behalf of our company,’ which would prove that you were previously able to act on its behalf.

                  ‘You may not attend the X trade fair on our behalf.’ A way of confirming that the agent/distributor’s responsibilities included participating in trade fairs and probably accrediting the customers obtained.

                  ‘The sales you promoted have been significantly reduced in year N.’ When there is no written contract or other form of documentation, imputing a breach of an obligation that is not clear can be counterproductive.

                  Saying ‘You are not actively promoting our products’ and then adding: ‘We urge you to stop promoting the sale of our products’.

                  ‘You are no longer our exclusive representative’, which proves a type of relationship (representation/agent) and a tacit or express agreement (‘exclusivity’).

                  ‘We have appointed another representative in your area’, which shows that the agent/distributor had an assigned area and was “representing”.

                  ‘From this moment on, orders will be handled by X’, which also confirms a type of relationship.

                   

                  In summary: from the moment the company considers terminating a commercial relationship, especially when it is not in writing and before sending any letter, it is advisable to think carefully about the strategy in case of a possible claim. This is the best time to seek advice and avoid surprises. Any communication that is not in line with this strategy designed from the outset can only lead to confusion and problems.

                  In Spagna, le società possono essere costruite per persone giuridiche o fisiche di qualsiasi nazionalità, residenti in Spagna o all’estero.

                  Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Fisica

                  Il cittadino straniero che desidera costruire una società spagnola e non è residente in Spagna dovrà ottenere un numero di identificazione dello straniero/numero di identificazione fiscale (NIE/NIF) prima della costituzione della società presso un notaio.

                  Per ottenere il NIE/NIF, dovrà, in alternativa:

                  • andare al consolato spagnolo del suo paese di residenza, o
                  • (ii) richiederlo presso l’ufficio stranieri/stazione della polizia in Spagna; in entrambi i casi, personalmente o tramite un rappresentante.

                  La rappresentanza sarà accreditata con una procura in cui si indichi espressamente che il rappresentante è autorizzato a presentare la domanda di ottenere il NIE.

                  Una volta ottenuto il NIE, dovrà comunicarlo all’agenzia tributaria tramite la presentazione del modulo 030, una fotocopia del passaporto e una fotocopia del NIE. Una volta comunicato il NIE all’agenzia tributaria, il cittadino straniero potrà recaesi presso un notaio per formalizzare l’atto di costituzione della società, presentando i seguenti documenti:

                  • Certificato negativo della denominazione rilasciato per il registro centrale delle imprese (riserva di nome per la società)
                  • Nel caso di conferimenti in denaro, la ricevuta emessa dalla banca che accredita il versamento dei contributi iniziali;  nel caso delle società a responsabilità limitata, è necessario presentare al notaio una ricevuta di pagamento  di un minimo di 3000 euro, effettuata direttamente dalla persona che sarà titolare delle partecipazioni della società.

                  Se il cittadino straniero che sta per costituire la società non compare personalmente presso il notaio, potrà farlo attraverso un rappresentante, dovendo esibire la procura originare da lui rilasciata al procuratore, legalizzata (tramite apostille o legalizzazione di documenti) e con traduzione giurata;

                  • I documenti di identificazione originale (documento nazionale d’identità o passaporto e (NIE/TIE) delle persone che costituiscono la nuova società.
                  • La dichiarazione di investimento ostraniera debitamente compilata. Si tratta di un documento obbligatorio, anche se puramente informativo, che deve presentarsi nel registro degli investimenti esteri del Ministero di economia e competitività entro un mese dalla costituzione della nuova società. Il notaio può occuparsene, se richiesto (Modulo D-1A)

                  Costituzione Da Parte Di Una Persona Giuridica

                  L’impresa straniera che desidera costituire una società spagnola deve ottenere un numero di identificazione fiscale prima della costituzione della società davanti ad un notaio, tramite un modulo di domanda (EX15).

                  Questa domanda del NIF deve essere firmata da un rappresentante della società che, nel caso in cui non fosse residente legale in Spagna (spagnolo o straniero con permesso di soggiorno), dovrà ottenere preventivamente/ un NIE come non-residente.

                  Se l’impresa straniera concede una procura a un residente legale in Spagna per ottenere il NIF dell’impresa, l’Agenzia Tributaria/ esige che il procuratore abbia anche un NIE come non-residente. Nel caso in qui non abbia un NIE, l’Amministrazione Tributaria può fornirgli un NIE provvisorio tramite il modulo 030 assieme ad una fotocopia del suo passaporto.

                  Una volta nominato questo rappresentante legale dell’impresa straniera dovrà firmare la domanda del modulo di censo (modulo 036) e la suddetta domanda dovrà essere presentata, personalmente, presso l’ufficio dell’Agenzia Tributaria allegando:

                  • la dichiarazione censitaria (modulo 036) firmata dalla persona autorizzata dall’impresa estera che richiede il NIF, e
                  • la procura rilasciata dal rappresentante autorizzato dell’ente non residente, debitamente autenticata e legalizzata, dove si designa una persona con residenza legale come rappresentante dell’entità e non-residente ai fini dell’ottenimento del NIF.

                  Una volta che l’impresa straniera è registrata presso l’Agenzia Tributaria, potrà procedere alla costituzione.

                  Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

                  L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

                  La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

                  La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

                  Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

                  La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

                  Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

                  Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

                  La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

                  Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

                  L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

                  L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

                  Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

                  La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

                  Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

                  Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

                  L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

                  Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

                  La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

                  Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

                  Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

                  La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

                  L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

                  L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

                  Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

                  Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

                  Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

                  Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

                  La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

                  L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

                  Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

                  Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

                  La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

                  Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

                  A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

                  La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

                  La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

                  Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

                  La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

                  Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

                  L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

                  Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

                  La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

                  La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

                  Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

                  In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

                  The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

                  Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

                  In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

                  What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

                  ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

                  The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

                  ADR as a procedural requirement

                  One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
                  However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

                  • Fundamental rights,
                  • Urgent measures concerning minors,
                  • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
                  • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
                  • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
                  • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

                  This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

                  Types of ADR recognized

                  The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

                  • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
                  • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
                  • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
                  • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
                  • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
                  • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

                  Key characteristics of ADR

                  • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
                  • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
                  • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
                  • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

                  Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

                  To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

                  In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

                  Advantages of ADR

                  The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

                  • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
                  • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
                  • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
                  • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
                  • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

                  Criticisms and challenges

                  Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

                  • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
                  • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
                  • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
                  • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

                  Conclusion

                  The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

                  Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

                  Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) is a variant of artificial intelligence aimed at creating models capable of generating new and original content. These models are trained to learn patterns and features from data sets, and can then generate similar or even completely new content based on those learned patterns.

                  A specific type of generative model is the generative neural network (GAN). GANs consist of two neural networks, one generative and one discriminative, working together. The generative network creates new content, while the discriminative network evaluates the authenticity of that content. The generative model can produce increasingly realistic results as these networks compete and improve.

                  Generative AI has applications in various areas, such as art creation, creative text generation, speech synthesis, and so on. It is also used in fields such as image enhancement and machine translation. This approach has advanced significantly in recent years and continues to be an active area of research in artificial intelligence.

                  Generative artificial intelligence applied to the legal sector involves using generative models to assist in various tasks and processes related to legal practice.

                  Positive aspects of generative AI applied to the legal sector

                  The integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal field has emerged as a transformative catalyst, providing a number of significant benefits that positively impact the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of legal services. Throughout this evolution, several aspects highlight the substantial contribution of artificial intelligence to legal practice.

                  Some of these benefits are highlighted below:

                  Legal Document Drafting

                  Generative AI can be used to draft legal documents, contracts and other legal texts. It can generate content based on patterns learned from large sets of legal data, facilitating the creation of standard documents and reducing the workload for legal professionals, also ensuring consistency and accuracy in legal drafting, reducing risks associated with possible human errors.

                  Analysis of large volumes of data

                  The ability to process information at a speed and scale that surpasses human abilities enables the identification of patterns, trends and precedents with greater speed and accuracy. This advanced analysis helps strengthen legal arguments, improve strategic decision-making and provide clients with stronger legal representation.

                  Improved legal research

                  Generative artificial intelligence systems can perform faster and more accurate searches of legal databases, law libraries and case law. This streamlines the legal research process, providing professionals with access to relevant information more efficiently.

                  Legal Argument Generation

                  Generative IA can help generate sound legal arguments. By understanding case law and legal principles, it can help lawyers build better arguments and develop strategies for specific cases.

                  Automated Legal Advice

                  Automated legal advice systems can be developed that use generative AI to answer common legal questions and provide basic guidance. This could be useful for simpler legal queries and to improve access to legal information.

                  Personalized legal advice

                  Artificial intelligence can analyze case-specific data and provide personalized legal advice. This helps legal professionals make more informed and strategic decisions by considering situation-specific factors.

                  Legal Scenario Simulation

                  Generative AI can simulate legal scenarios to help lawyers evaluate possible outcomes and risks in particular cases. This could be useful in strategic decision-making and legal planning.

                  Automation of repetitive tasks

                  The ability of artificial intelligence systems to take on the workload related to standard document review and basic information management allows legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic issues. This automation not only saves time but also decreases the likelihood of human error, thus strengthening the overall quality of legal work.

                  Optimization of internal processes

                  Artificial intelligence can significantly improve efficiency in case management, meeting scheduling, and other day-to-day operations in law firms. This optimization not only streamlines internal practices but also enables more efficient resource allocation and more effective workload management.

                  In short, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector transcends the mere automation of tasks, encompassing fundamental aspects that improve the quality and efficiency of legal services. From the automation of routine tasks to advanced data analysis and document generation, artificial intelligence is a powerful ally that drives positive developments in legal practice. This advancement not only improves the internal efficiency of law firms, but also strengthens the ability of legal professionals to provide accurate and strategic advice in an ever-changing legal environment.

                  While generative AI offers many possibilities, its implementation in the legal sector must be approached cautiously to ensure accuracy, ethics, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Human intervention and legal oversight remain essential to ensure quality and accountability in using these technologies.

                  Negative aspects of the application of generative AI to the legal sector

                  While promising, the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector poses a number of challenges and negative aspects that require attention and careful consideration. Despite significant advances in automation and process improvement, addressing the following adverse aspects is crucial to ensure an ethical and effective implementation.

                  Lack of human discernment

                  Although artificial intelligence systems can analyze data at impressive speed, they lack human understanding and sensitivity. Interpreting legal nuances, understanding emotional contexts, and making decisions based on ethics are skills intrinsic to legal professionals. Over-reliance on technology in interpreting complex situations could result in inadequate or insensitive assessments.

                  Risk of algorithmic bias

                  Algorithms used in generative artificial intelligence are trained on historical data, and if that data contains cultural, ethnic, or gender biases, the results generated may reflect and perpetuate those biases. This raises ethical and legal concerns, as automated decisions could be inherently discriminatory, affecting fairness and justice in the legal system.

                  Data security and privacy

                  The implementation of artificial intelligence in the legal field involves handling highly confidential information. Systems’ vulnerability to cyber attacks could expose sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of the legal system. Good protection against cyber threats is essential to maintaining confidence in these technologies.

                  Job displacement

                  As artificial intelligence takes over routine and repetitive tasks, there is a risk that certain jobs in the legal sector will be affected. This raises questions about role restructuring and the need for legal professionals to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing work environment. The ethics of this displacement and measures to mitigate its impacts must be carefully addressed.

                  Ethical complexity in decision making

                  Generative artificial intelligence algorithms often operate opaquely, meaning that the logic behind their decisions can be difficult to understand or explain. This raises ethical questions about accountability and transparency in legal decision-making, especially in critical cases where a clear explanation of decisions is critical.

                  Costs associated with implementation

                  From initial development to ongoing training and system maintenance, law firms, especially smaller ones, can face significant financial challenges. This raises the issue of equity in access to these technologies and the need to seek solutions that do not perpetuate inequities in the legal system.

                  Cultural resistance and adaptation

                  Cultural resistance and adaptation are factors that should not be overlooked. The introduction of generative artificial intelligence may encounter resistance among legal professionals who may be reluctant to rely on emerging technologies. Organizational culture and acceptance of these tools may require time and effort for successful implementation. Training and effective communication are essential to overcome these barriers.

                  In conclusion, the application of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector, while offering significant benefits, is not without its challenges. Addressing the lack of human discernment, mitigating the risk of algorithmic bias, ensuring data security and privacy, managing labor displacement, addressing ethical complexity in decision making, and managing associated costs are imperative for ethical and effective implementation. Careful thought and appropriate regulation are essential to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without compromising fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

                  The Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid has ruled in the SuperLiga case following the guidelines set by the CJEU in its decision of December 21 last year.

                  The lawsuit was filed by ESCL, an entity formed by Real Madrid and other soccer clubs to promote the SuperLiga, most of which abandoned the project due to pressure from fans and their governments against FIFA and UEFA, with RFEF and La Liga voluntarily joining the defendants.

                  As usually happens with elections, but not with sentences, everyone, plaintiffs and defendants, has shown their satisfaction with this ruling, which is not yet final, as it can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Madrid.

                  In brief, the proceedings involved whether the FIFA/UEFA regulations on the organization and authorization of soccer competitions and the management of the rights deriving from such competitions were in accordance with Community competition law, articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

                  The CJEU judgment of last December had already ruled that the regulatory rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to prior authorization and participation, which give these entities the power to prevent any competing company from accessing the market, constitute an abuse of a dominant position and infringe the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, mainly because they are not accompanied by certain limits and controls guaranteeing transparency and objectivity in the decision not to authorize such international competitions, which allow the risk of abuse of a dominant position to be excluded.

                  Likewise, the Court of Justice, using the same arguments and about the exploitation rights deriving from sporting competitions, states that the FIFA and UEFA rules are contrary to the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, since they attribute to themselves exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.

                  Following the guidelines set by the CJEU judgment, the judgment of Madrid Commercial Court No. 17 partially upheld the lawsuit filed by ESLC against UEFA and FIFA. It declared that both organizations have abused their dominant position and are preventing free competition in the market by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions, conduct that infringes Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

                  The ruling condemns FIFA and UEFA to cease the anticompetitive conduct sanctioned and prohibits them from repeating them in the future. It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of the anticompetitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of the lawsuit, which began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of the SupeLiga.

                  Finally, the judgment states that the content of the declarations issued by FIFA, UEFA and other entities (including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project) on April 18, 2021 (referred to in the lawsuit as the ‘Declaration’) in relation to the pan-European international competition project, also infringes Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

                  It should be noted that the judgment expressly states that “inasmuch as the SuperLiga in the terms initially set forth in the lawsuit, i.e. in accordance with the initial project has been abandoned and discarded by the promoters themselves, the motions in relation thereto must likewise lapse; it is not possible to impose a prohibition or restriction in the abstract, i.e. to impose a prohibition in the future of any other project or modification of the one already presented”.

                  Based on this argument, the Judgment rejects the requests included in section f) of the lawsuit which, in summary, requested that FIFA and UEFA be ordered to refrain from any conduct, measure, or action or issue any statement that prevents or hinders in any way the preparation of the SuperLiga; and the commercial judge concludes by stating in this regard that the purpose of these proceedings is not “the authorization of any competition, but to lay the foundations to channel a system of free competition for the organization of soccer competitions”.

                  Thereafter, everyone is happy with the result; La Liga issued a statement stressing that the ruling does not endorse a project which, moreover, according to the same ruling, has been abandoned by its promoters. UEFA says that it is pleased to note that the judge has given a good and valid system of prior authorization for third-party competitions to be approved in accordance with UEFA’s authorization rules and has recognized the undoubted benefits of these rules for the soccer sporting system, concluding that “the judgment does not give third parties the right to develop competitions without authorization and does not refer to any future project or to any modified version of an existing project”.

                  The plaintiffs, too, are happy and content to proclaim that UEFA’s statutes and the aggressive measures taken to protect its monopoly have stifled innovation for decades. Clubs should not have to fear threats of sanctions simply for having ideas and having conversations. The era of monopoly is definitely over.

                  Rarely does one find that a judgment leaves all the litigants so happy and content, but that seems to be the case here. Or at least that is what all of them have been interested in communicating, when the harsh reality is, on the one hand, that the SuperLiga project as it was structured when the lawsuit started and FIFA/UEFA reacted furiously, is dead and buried, and on the other hand, that the happy world in which FIFA and UEFA regulated soccer and competitions as a private preserve, considered themselves immune and alien to ordinary justice and shared the money generated without being accountable to the Courts of Justice and threatened to expel or expel the rebellious spirits, has come to an end.

                  Commercial agents have specific regulations with rights and obligations that are “mandatory”: those who sign an agency contract cannot derogate from them. Answering whether an influencer can be an agent is essential because, if he or she is an agent, the agent regulations will apply to him or her.

                  Let’s take it one step at a time. The influencer we will talk about is the person who, with their actions and comments (blogs, social media accounts, videos, events, or a bit of everything), talks to their followers about the advantages of certain products or services identified with a certain third-party brand. In exchange for this, the influencer is paid.[1]

                  A commercial agent is someone who promotes the contracting of others’ products or services, does so in a stable way, and gets paid in return. He or she can also conclude the contract, but this is not essential.

                  The law imposes certain obligations and guarantees rights to those signing an agency contract. If the influencer is considered an “agent”, he or she should also have them. And there are several of them: for example, the duration, the notice to be given to terminate the contract, the obligations of the parties… And the most relevant, the right of the agent to receive compensation at the end of the relationship for the clientele that has been generated. If an influencer is an agent, he would also have this right.

                  How can an influencer be assessed as an agent? For that we must analyse two things: (a) the contract (and be careful because there is a contract, even if it is not written) and (b) how the parties have behaved.

                  The elements that, in my opinion, are most relevant to conclude that an influencer is an agent would be the following:

                   

                  a) the influencer promotes the contracting of services or the purchase of products and does so independently.

                  The contract will indicate what the influencer must do. It will be clearer to consider him as an agent if his comments encourage contracting: for example, if they include a link to the manufacturer’s website, if he offers a discount code, if he allows orders to be placed with him. And if he does so as an independent “professional”, and not as an employee (with a timetable, means, instructions).

                  It may be more difficult to consider him as an agent if he limits himself to talking about the benefits of the product or service, appearing in advertising as a brand image, and using a certain product, and speaking well of it. The important thing, in my opinion, is to examine whether the influencer’s activity is aimed at getting people to buy the product he or she is talking about, or whether what he or she is doing is more generic persuasion (appearing in advertising, lending his or her image to a product, carrying out demonstrations of its use), or even whether he or she is only seeking to promote himself or herself as a vehicle for general information (for example, influencers who make comparisons of products without trying to get people to buy one or the other). In the first case (trying to get people to buy the product) it would be easier to consider it as an “agent”, and less so in the other examples.

                   

                  b) this “promotion” is done in a continuous or stable manner.

                  Be careful because this continuity or stability does not mean that the contract has to be of indefinite duration. Rather, it is the opposite of a sporadic relationship. A one-year contract may be sufficient, while several unconnected interventions, even if they last longer, may not be sufficient.

                  In this case, influencers who make occasional comments, who intervene with isolated actions, who limit themselves to making comparisons without promoting the purchase of one or the other, and even if all this leads to sales, even if their comments are frequent and even if they can have a great influence on the behavior of their followers, would be excluded as agents.

                   

                  c) they receive remuneration for their activity.

                  An influencer who is remunerated based on sales (e.g., by promoting a discount code, a specific link, or referring to your website for orders) can more easily be considered as an agent. But also, if he or she only receives a fixed amount for their promotion. On the other hand, influencers who do not receive any remuneration from the brand (e.g. someone who talks about the benefits of a product in comparison with others, but without linking it to its promotion) would be excluded.

                   

                  Conclusion

                  The borderline between what qualifies an influencer as an agent and what does not can be very thin, especially because contracts are often not unambiguous and sometimes their services are multiple. The most important thing is to carefully analyse the contract and the parties’ behaviour.

                  An influencer could be considered a commercial agent to the extent that his or her activity promotes the contracting of the product (not simply if he or she carries out informative or image work), that it is done on a stable basis (and not merely anecdotal or sporadic) and in exchange for remuneration.

                  To assess the specific situation, it is essential to analyse the contract (if it is written, this is easier) and the parties’ behaviour.

                  In short, to draw up a contract with an influencer or, if it has already been signed, but you want to conclude it, you will have to pay attention to these elements. As an influencer you may have a strong interest in being considered an agent at the end of the contract and thus be entitled to compensation, while as employer you will prefer the opposite.

                  FINAL NOTE. In Spain and at the date of this comment (9 June 2024) I am not aware of any judgement dealing with this issue. My proposal is based on my experience of more than 30 years advising and litigating on agency contracts. On the other hand, and as far as I know, there is at least one judgment in Rome (Italy) dealing with the matter: Tribunale di Roma; Sezione Lavoro 4º, St. 2615 of 4 March 2024; R. G. n. 38445/2022.

                  Ignacio Alonso

                  Aree di attività

                  • Agenzia
                  • Diritto societario
                  • Distribuzione
                  • Franchising
                  Contatta Ignacio

                  Scrivi a Ignacio





                    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.