The contribution of evidence in labour jurisdiction following Organic Law 1/2025

Goodbye to the classic contribution of the documentary at the trial

The new article 82.5 of the LRJS will oblige the parties to present the documentary and expert evidence they wish to use in the trial 10 days before the date of the trial. Evidence will only be admitted outside this period if it was not known previously, has been obtained subsequently or its relevance derives from other admitted evidence.

As we can see, a preclusive period is introduced for the presentation of documentary or expert evidence. The legislator, however, introduces exceptions to the preclusive period, allowing the submission of evidence after the deadline when:

— It refers to events that occurred after the filing of the lawsuit.

— It involves new facts or new information.

— The party justifies that it was impossible to obtain the evidence previously.

Likewise, the opposing party is granted the possibility of objecting to the admission of late evidence in the trial itself. Finally, financial penalties may be imposed if there is evidence of dilatory intent or procedural bad faith in the presentation of evidence after the deadline, a measure that seeks to dissuade certain litigants.

Consequences of failure to provide evidence

Failure to comply with these provisions can have serious consequences:

— Failure to provide evidence within the deadline and without justification may result in its inadmissibility.

— If documents or expert reports submitted after the deadline are not admitted, the party intending to use them will not be able to prove the facts in question.

— In cases where there is evidence of a delaying tactic in the presentation of evidence after the deadline, the court may impose financial penalties.

The new paradigm of social jurisdiction

The sentence of the Andalusian High Court (Seville) of 9 July 2020 is brilliantly summarised:

‘Labour trials have specific phases and purposes defined by law, operating the principle of preclusion, and it is in the trial when, once the subject of the dispute is established after hearing the defendants’ opposition arguments, with eventual acknowledgement of facts, (...) when the evidence is proposed and not before, (...) no one has the obligation to reveal their defence strategy in advance, including the evidence to be proposed, future in the subsequent plenary session'.

In other words, the appropriate procedural moment to propose the evidence is at the trial, once the subject of the litigation has been established. However, Organic Law 1/2025 has amended article 82 of the LRJS, introducing the obligation to present documentary and expert evidence ten days before the trial.

Presenting evidence before the trial, with its corresponding transfer also anticipated to the opposing party, may imply a certain disclosure of your defence strategy. It provides the opposing party with information about the facts you intend to prove and the strength of your defence. Therefore, the early presentation of any documentary and expert evidence inevitably means revealing at least part of your defence.

Tensions with equality of arms

Let me explain: always within the mandatory period of ten days before the trial, whoever presents the evidence last will have time to analyse the documentation previously provided by the other party and, based on this, add documents or elements that counteract or reinforce their position.

This creates a potential imbalance because, although all parties involved in the proceedings have the same obligation to present their documents within the preclusive period, in practice, whoever delays the contribution — within the established limit — can observe the documents provided by the other party in advance, and can adjust their body of documentary evidence to counter, one by one, the documents of the opposing party.

In other words, the party that presents its documentary evidence last can review the evidence previously provided by the opposing party and, based on this, reinforce its arguments or provide additional documents to refute them.

Organic Law 1/2025 represents a change in the traditional dynamics of labour proceedings. Although it seeks to streamline procedures and avoid delaying tactics, articles have been introduced that could potentially contravene the principle of equality of arms in the proceedings. In my opinion, the success or failure of this ambitious amendment will depend on how the courts interpret and apply it, ensuring the necessary balance between speed, guiding principles and procedural guarantees.

Link to the complete article, published in Actualidad Jurídica Aranzadi.