Social Rights

The decision of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) on the merits in Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v. Spain, Complaint No. 218/2022, became public on 27 June 2025.

In its complaint, the complainant organisation alleged that the situation in Spain is in violation of Article 24 of the revised European Social Charter (“the Charter”) on the following grounds: 

-    the courts are not allowed to order reinstatement as an appropriate remedy for unfair dismissal, regardless of the circumstances and conduct of the parties; 
-    the courts are not allowed to order reinstatement as an appropriate remedy for unfair dismissal in situations in which it is established that the dismissal is a fraudulent act aimed at removing workers from their employment as a means of preventing the exercise of the rights to which they may be entitled under the Charter or its Protocols; 
-    the mechanism for compensation in cases of unfair dismissal does not allow victims to claim additional compensation linked to the actual damage suffered;
-    the mechanism for compensation in cases of unfair dismissal does not allow victims to obtain a minimum, accessible and effective compensation that would have a dissuasive effect for employers; 
-    the compensation is insufficient for the damage suffered as a result of successive temporary contracts concluded in fraud of law, especially in respect of workers under temporary contracts in public administrations, as they receive lower compensation than that provided for in cases of unfair dismissal.

In its decision on the merits, the ECSR concluded:

-    unanimously that there is a violation of Article 24.b of the Charter with regard to compensation for unfair dismissal; 

-    unanimously that there is a violation of Article 24.b of the Charter with regard to reinstatement;

-    unanimously that there is a violation of Article 24.b of the Charter with regard to compensation for unfair dismissal of temporary workers hired in fraud of law.

In accordance with Rule 35§1 of the ECSR Rules, a separate concurring opinion was appended to the decision.