The plenary session of the Constitutional Court reached a unanimous decision regarding the challenge to the 2021 royal decree aimed at curbing temporary employment in the public sector. The objection, filed by multiple lawmakers from Vox, sought a ruling that the measure breached constitutional limits, arguing that the extraordinary nature of the decree did not justify its issuance and that its provisions impaired fundamental rights. The court’s ruling confirms that the decree remains within the constitutional framework and does not infringe the core guarantees enshrined in the constitution.
In their appeal, Vox MPs contended that the decree was inherently exceptional and urgent, a characterization that they believed authorized its issuance and allowed it to bypass normal legislative safeguards. They argued that the regulation’s content overstepped the material limits of a decree law by affecting essential rights. Yet the Constitutional Court clarified that the document does not establish a broad regulation of the fundamental right to access public services, and that the government provided a robust justification for the measure through formal impact assessments and the accompanying explanatory memorandum. The court noted that the justification extended through the regulatory impact report, the norm’s explanatory statement, and subsequent discussions during ratification, aligning with constitutional requirements for extraordinary decrees. The decision underscored the importance of a clear link between the described emergency and the regulatory response, without permitting a general overhaul of core public service rights.
The Court also highlighted the relationship between the measures adopted and the emergency conditions they intend to address. It stressed that the decree was designed to respond to an exceptional situation, while maintaining a proportional approach to reducing temporary staffing in the public sector. The judges emphasized that the rule at issue does not amount to a blanket reform of fundamental rights but rather targeted adjustments within the framework of public administration. This distinction reinforces the Court’s role in ensuring that emergency measures remain proportionate and temporary, subject to ongoing scrutiny as conditions evolve.
In July 2021, the government approved a royal decree that introduced urgent steps to curb the use of temporary workers in the public sector, setting ambitious goals and reorganizational incentives. Among the measures, the decree sought to limit temporary hiring and to promote the creation of stable, long-term positions within the public administration. The plan included a directive for filling a substantial number of structural roles with new or converted permanent staff, aiming to reduce reliance on temporary arrangements. The decision by the Court, together with the government’s subsequent justifications, reflects a broader policy objective: to increase workforce stability while preserving essential public services. Analysts and observers note that the ruling reinforces the framework within which emergency actions can be deployed, provided they are transparent, proportionate, and grounded in rigorous impact assessments. This approach helps balance the imperative to reform public employment practices with the imperative to protect constitutional rights and ensure public accountability.