Contradictions in minimum services
The Justice Administration Lawyers’ union in Alicante reported that their strike left certain court accounts blocked, potentially affecting alimony payments up to one million euros. Estimates cited by people close to the group indicate that these blocked funds formed part of a larger set of court-ordered obligations. The situation arose amid several judicial actions in Alicante, including bond issues and indemnities, all of which require the signature of the LAJ to proceed. As tensions grew, organizers advised directing payment orders to professionals, even though this step was not specified in the contract. The ordinance establishing minimum services is issued by the Ministry of Justice, yet organizers argue that the Decree is overly vague and omits several fundamental issues. If the conflict continues, upcoming municipal and regional elections in May could be jeopardized because the electoral boards, which were to become operational on April 4, might not be formed.
One of the items left out by the Decree on minimum services, as noted by its chairman, Pilar Llop, is the payment of alimony in cases of divorce or separation. When a spouse fails to provide support, the court usually steps in. Through judicial channels, the state may advance funds by embargo or month-to-month orders to ensure the beneficiary receives support, with oversight by both civil and criminal courts. Initially the Family Court monitored these payments; if a payment is not made for more than three months, it can become a criminal matter, elevating responsibility to criminal courts.
The judicial district of Alicante has seen a rising volume of cases in Family Courts, which handle these matters exclusively, while other districts distribute similar cases across different courts. The strike committee provided an estimated figure for the amount of alimony money blocked due to the stoppage. Given the sensitivity of the issue, associations that have called for a four-week strike have decided to grant professionals broad latitude to decide whether to permit payments, exercising professional responsibility to avoid excessive harm to citizens. Starting next week, payments may begin to be blocked again under professional guidance that supports these protests.
Another point of contention is the effort to keep victims informed about possible suspensions caused by direct interruptions. The debate features strong demands from both sides of the dispute, including advocacy from lawyers. The union stated that while they understood the anger, the Manager’s refusal to honor certain commitments contributed to the current situation. The conflict, now in its fifth week, remains entrenched as participants seek to temper some of the more controversial positions.
Inconsistencies in minimum services
The Decree from the Ministry of Justice governs minimum services, including urgent payments such as alimony, disability benefits, fines, and compensation. It does not cover minimum services related to attachments, entry and search warrants, or wiretapping requests. This omission raised questions at the last Judicial Police commission due to concerns about civil liberties. The topic touches sensitive areas such as gender violence, where complaints are urgent but may not fall under the current minimum services. If the conflict persists, elections could be at risk since the deadline to set up electoral boards falls on April 4.
Minimum service ordinances that affect personal liberties, including those tied to prisoners, must consider deadlines that could lead to rights being temporarily unavailable. They also impact civil registrations for births, deaths, and marriages, as well as guard services. Attention should be given to procedural steps that involve a minor or someone legally incapable.