When justice arrives by unconventional paths
Justice stumbles over efficiency
Thursday, October 9, 2025
Erola Gràcia
The Organic Law 1/2025, in force since April 1 of this year, arrived with a clear promise: to make the administration of justice more efficient. A noble purpose, no doubt. Less workload in the courts, more prior agreements, fewer unnecessary lawsuits.
On paper, it looked flawless.
But in practice, the theory has gone astray. The new requirement to prove an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR) before filing a lawsuit has generated more uncertainty than efficiency. Because what happens when each court interprets the rule in its own way? Justice ceases to be universal and begins to depend on chance.
The result: the same law, two interpretations, and a system that, in its effort to be agile, becomes unpredictable.
What does Organic Law 1/2025 include
Organic Law 1/2025 was born with a reasonable intention: to reduce the workload of the courts and encourage parties to resolve their differences without the need to go to trial. In theory, before filing a lawsuit, the parties must attempt an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR).
Negotiate, mediate, reconcile… it all sounds like common sense. The approved mechanisms are as diverse as they are promising:
Direct negotiation
Confidential binding offer
Mediation
Conciliation
Intervention by an independent expert
Collaborative law
Up to that point, nothing to object to. But the law, as ambitious in its purpose as it is ambiguous in its wording, did not explain clearly enough how that prior negotiation should be proven. Nor which means are valid, nor what format should be used, nor what happens if one of the parties simply ignores the attempt at an agreement.
The result has been a sort of procedural lottery. The same burofax, buromail, or certified letter may serve as evidence in one court… and be rejected in another. Justice, turned into a matter of coordinates.
Theory clashes with practice
Just a few weeks ago, the same legal text, the same lawsuit, and the same documents led to two completely opposite outcomes.
One court dismissed it, considering that the buromails and burofaxes sent did not adequately prove the “prior negotiation activity” required by Organic Law 1/2025.
Another court, however, admitted it without hesitation.
Yes, literally the same.
This contrast —more fitting for a screenplay than for a judicial system— shows to what extent the lack of clear criteria can turn justice into a matter of luck. The same law that aimed to be a bridge toward procedural efficiency has, in some cases, become a door that opens or closes depending on who guards it.
“Sometimes, to get in, it’s not enough to knock on the door.
Sometimes, you have to climb in through the window.”
The phrase ironically sums up an uncomfortable reality: the rule may be identical, but its application depends on the criteria of the court that receives it.
And when that happens, justice fades away.
The risks of a generic law
The problem with Organic Law 1/2025 does not lie in its intention but in its wording. A rule designed to “improve the efficiency of justice” cannot leave it to each court’s discretion to decide which means are valid to prove an attempt at negotiation.
Because when the law is generic, practice becomes unpredictable. And unpredictability, in the legal field, translates into legal uncertainty.
Some courts accept burofaxes, others do not. Some consider buromail valid; others dismiss it altogether. The consequence is absurd: the same action can be correct in one court and invalid in another, depending on the postal code where the case is filed.
The result: citizens and lawyers trapped in a procedural limbo, where the promised efficiency turns into a maze. An unequal justice that, far from speeding things up, slows them down.
Legal creativity and practical resistance
When the law becomes more of an obstacle than a tool, legal creativity ceases to be an option and becomes a necessity.
And in this case, creativity had a proper name: refiling the lawsuit.
Yes, the same lawsuit, with the same arguments and the same documents.
But before a different court.
An unorthodox decision, perhaps, but a profoundly sensible one.
Because following “what the book says” —filing an appeal— would have meant waiting months, perhaps more than a year, for the Provincial Court to decide something as basic as whether to admit the case for processing.
Meanwhile, the client would have continued to be unable to exercise their right.
Refiling the lawsuit was not a shortcut; it was a reminder that justice is not measured in procedural steps but in effective results.
And sometimes, the shortest path to justice is not in the manual but in experience and professional judgment.
Thinking “outside the case file” is not a sign of disrespect for the law. It is an act of defense.
Because the law was not created to hinder access to justice, but to make it possible.
A lesson on justice and common sense
The story of this lawsuit is not just about a buromail or a judicial disagreement. It is about something deeper: how justice, to be truly just, needs more than well-written laws.
It needs common sense, coherence, and above all, humanity.
Organic Law 1/2025 was born with the intention of speeding up justice, but its uneven application shows that there is still much work to be done. It is not enough to reform procedure; access to the courts must be guaranteed so that it does not depend on chance or the shifting judgment of each court.
Because sometimes the difference between justice and frustration lies in a simple interpretation.
And that is where the essential role of the lawyer comes in: finding the balance between the letter and the spirit of the law, between technical rigor and the defense of what is reasonable.
At
