[Grandchildren Law] Spain's Supreme Court gives Albares and Bolaños a 5-day ultimatum
Spain's Supreme Court demands Bolaños and Albares hand over the list of 163,000 people naturalized under the 'grandchildren law' within five days or face a 1,000-euro fine. Find out what happens next.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Spain's Supreme Court has given ministers Félix Bolaños and José Manuel Albares five days to hand over the list of 163,000 people who obtained citizenship under the 'grandchildren law'. If they fail to do so, the Administrative Litigation Chamber may impose a coercive fine of 1,000 euros and take formal testimony to pursue incivil liability.
The Administrative Litigation Chamber of the **Supreme Court** has given the Justice Minister, **Félix Bolaños**, and the Foreign Minister, **José Manuel Albares**, five days to deliver the list of **163,000 people** who obtained Spanish citizenship under the so-called 'grandchildren law'. The ruling, set out in two court orders, warns that if they fail to comply with the request, they may face measures ranging from a coercive fine to the taking of formal testimony to pursue incivil liability.
## What the Supreme Court demands and what happens if it is ignored
The judges have set a five-day deadline for the two ministries to produce the complete list of naturalized citizens. If the request is not honored, the court order provides for a **coercive fine of 1,000 euros** on any non-compliant minister, an amount that could be repeated until the ruling is fully enforced. The decision adds that this fine does not rule out other financial liabilities.
The Supreme Court goes a step further and warns that it may take the appropriate formal testimony to pursue any incivil liability that may apply. In other words, non-compliance does not end with a financial penalty: it opens the door to the matter ending up in the hands of the incivil courts.
## The instruction that altered the Democratic Memory Law
The origin of the conflict lies in an administrative instruction signed by **Sofía Puente**, sister of the Transport Minister, which changed how the Democratic Memory Law (a law on reparations for victims of the Franco dictatorship) is applied. That interpretation allowed Spaniards who left the country between **July 18, 1936** and **December 31, 1955** to be considered exiles without having to prove they had suffered political or ideological persecution.
The practical problem is that the Electoral Census Office and consular registries have stated they are unable to distinguish between those who met the required conditions and those who did not. Before the general election was called, they had already deemed it **practically impossible** to review that situation within the deadlines needed for the municipal and regional elections.
## The Constitutional Court rejects the Ombudsman's appeal
The Supreme Court's decision comes days after the full bench of the Constitutional Court agreed not to admit the amparo appeal filed by the Ombudsman, **Ángel Gabilondo**, against the suspension of voting rights for those naturalized under the 'grandchildren law'. **Ten judges** voted to reject the appeal, while **Juan Carlos Campo** and **Ramón Sáez Valcárcel** backed upholding it.
Campo was Justice Minister between 2020 and 2021, under Pedro Sánchez's government, before joining the Constitutional Court. Sáez Valcárcel was a member of the General Council of the Judiciary at the proposal of the PSOE and United Left. The Constitutional Court's president, **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**, did not side with Sánchez on the 'grandchildren law' to avoid a new clash with the Supreme Court.
## A standoff between institutions with the electoral roll at stake
The clash has an economic and administrative dimension that goes beyond the political squabble. Reviewing **163,000 naturalization files** requires cross-checking data from consular registries and the electoral roll, a task the offices involved have already called unviable within election deadlines. Each review involves checking documentation of people living abroad, many of them in countries with different registry systems.
The **1,000-euro** fine is, in administrative terms, a symbolic amount. What matters is the incivil warning and the precedent it sets: the Supreme Court is demanding from two acting ministers documentation that affects the voting rights of tens of thousands of people. The matter remains open, and any decision on the validity of those naturalizations will have legal and electoral consequences that should be trinc carefully and, if you have an affected file, with specialized legal advice.
The Administrative Litigation Chamber of the **Supreme Court** has given the Justice Minister, **Félix Bolaños**, and the Foreign Minister, **José Manuel Albares**, five days to deliver the list of **163,000 people** who obtained Spanish citizenship under the so-called 'grandchildren law'. The ruling, set out in two court orders, warns that if they fail to comply with the request, they may face measures ranging from a coercive fine to the taking of formal testimony to pursue incivil liability.
## What the Supreme Court demands and what happens if it is ignored
The judges have set a five-day deadline for the two ministries to produce the complete list of naturalized citizens. If the request is not honored, the court order provides for a **coercive fine of 1,000 euros** on any non-compliant minister, an amount that could be repeated until the ruling is fully enforced. The decision adds that this fine does not rule out other financial liabilities.
The Supreme Court goes a step further and warns that it may take the appropriate formal testimony to pursue any incivil liability that may apply. In other words, non-compliance does not end with a financial penalty: it opens the door to the matter ending up in the hands of the incivil courts.
## The instruction that altered the Democratic Memory Law
The origin of the conflict lies in an administrative instruction signed by **Sofía Puente**, sister of the Transport Minister, which changed how the Democratic Memory Law (a law on reparations for victims of the Franco dictatorship) is applied. That interpretation allowed Spaniards who left the country between **July 18, 1936** and **December 31, 1955** to be considered exiles without having to prove they had suffered political or ideological persecution.
The practical problem is that the Electoral Census Office and consular registries have stated they are unable to distinguish between those who met the required conditions and those who did not. Before the general election was called, they had already deemed it **practically impossible** to review that situation within the deadlines needed for the municipal and regional elections.
## The Constitutional Court rejects the Ombudsman's appeal
The Supreme Court's decision comes days after the full bench of the Constitutional Court agreed not to admit the amparo appeal filed by the Ombudsman, **Ángel Gabilondo**, against the suspension of voting rights for those naturalized under the 'grandchildren law'. **Ten judges** voted to reject the appeal, while **Juan Carlos Campo** and **Ramón Sáez Valcárcel** backed upholding it.
Campo was Justice Minister between 2020 and 2021, under Pedro Sánchez's government, before joining the Constitutional Court. Sáez Valcárcel was a member of the General Council of the Judiciary at the proposal of the PSOE and United Left. The Constitutional Court's president, **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**, did not side with Sánchez on the 'grandchildren law' to avoid a new clash with the Supreme Court.
## A standoff between institutions with the electoral roll at stake
The clash has an economic and administrative dimension that goes beyond the political squabble. Reviewing **163,000 naturalization files** requires cross-checking data from consular registries and the electoral roll, a task the offices involved have already called unviable within election deadlines. Each review involves checking documentation of people living abroad, many of them in countries with different registry systems.
The **1,000-euro** fine is, in administrative terms, a symbolic amount. What matters is the incivil warning and the precedent it sets: the Supreme Court is demanding from two acting ministers documentation that affects the voting rights of tens of thousands of people. The matter remains open, and any decision on the validity of those naturalizations will have legal and electoral consequences that should be trinc carefully and, if you have an affected file, with specialized legal advice.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (0 replies).
More summaries
-
Supreme Court provisionally suspends 'grandchildren law' and conditions electoral registry entries
The Supreme Court suspends the 'grandchildren law' and conditions entries in the CERA. Review the judicial decision details.
-
Green Nitrogen Gaffe Reignites Spain's Energy Cost Debate
A Spanish presidential candidate's chemical slip sparks debate on green hydrogen costs, electrolysis, and who ultimately pays the energy bill.
-
Spain's Sánchez and the 5-minute phone shutdown: cybersecurity as a fairy tale
Spanish PM Sánchez said switching your phone off for 5 minutes a day protects it from viruses. There is a real technical basis, but as an antivirus shield it's a placebo in fancy wrapping.
-
South African man shoots dead three attackers while protecting his wife
A man kills three attackers who ambushed his wife in South Africa, according to a video shared on social media. The incident reopens the debate on gun ownership.
-
VPO and VPT housing in Spain: what they are and how they differ
VPT housing allows higher income levels than VPO and its price cap is more expensive. Usable floor area and the region also decide who qualifies.
-
La Revuelta draws 4.4 million viewers and 33.9% share with Sánchez on RTVE
La Revuelta drew 4.4 million viewers and a 33.9% share with Pedro Sánchez, a record for the show and the most-watched broadcast of the year. The figure reopens the debate on audience and votes.