Convicted for Five Years — Never Properly Informed: How a Formal Error Threatened Livelihoods

Convicted for Five Years — Never Properly Informed: How a Formal Error Threatened Livelihoods

The Constitutional Court finds a violation of the right to judicial protection — but the question remains: who will check more reliably in future?

Key question: How can a court judgment stand for five years against people who never learned about the proceedings?

The Spanish Constitutional Court has upheld the complaint of three entrepreneurs. The facts are brief: in 2018 a company was sued over an apartment on Sant Miquel street in Palma; the property was to be sold. The service of the lawsuit was effected electronically to the company's mailbox — a mailbox that had been inactive since 2007 because the company had been liquidated. In 2020 the court conducted proceedings in the absence of the affected men and declared the judgment final. Only in 2024, when the plaintiffs sought to enforce the decision, did the three learn that legal consequences had been imposed on them years earlier.

The constitutional judges see a double violation: first, the duty to serve in person at the company's registered office and to provide a paper copy was ignored; second, the court could have discovered by checking the commercial register that the company had been dissolved. In other words: a technical dispatch to a dead mailbox was not sufficient to safeguard the fundamental right to effective legal protection.

Critical analysis: what failed here was less the technology than the practice. Electronic court service makes many things easier — but it also requires checks. An electronic address must not automatically be assumed valid; whoever serves must verify whether the recipient actually exists. Otherwise an automated click can become an effective exclusion from the proceedings. In Mallorca, where contracts, real estate and small companies are tightly linked, such a formal error has real consequences: assets, reputation, life plans. Similar local cases are reported, such as Two and a Half Years in Prison for Former Finance Chief: When Trust, Illness and Oversight Collide.

What's missing from public debate: people either preach faith in technology or demand pure criminal-procedure drama. The discussion about e-justice usually stays at the level of "efficient vs. slow". The real question — who bears responsibility when automatic services go to non-existent addresses? — is asked too rarely. Equally little discussed is how those affected can react in time and affordably if authorities or courts fail to check in addition to digital service.

A typical scene from Palma: you think of the small real estate office in the old town, the door open in the late morning and an espresso steaming at the bar outside the door. The neighbor, an old bookseller, still remembers the times when letters were hand-delivered. Today the smartphone rings, an email goes through — and nobody notices if it goes to an abandoned company address. This gap between digital illusion and real perception is tangible here, between Passeig Mallorca and the narrow Sant Miquel lane.

Concrete solutions: First: before any electronic service, a check with the commercial register must be carried out. If a company has been dissolved, alternative methods of service are mandatory — for example postal service to the last known private address of the directors with proof of delivery. Second: courts should introduce a simple duty to follow up: if service does not clearly reach a living recipient, the court must act and not insist on deadlines that lead to defaults. Third: there should be a mandatory notification chain: for important civil service, emails should also be sent to registered natural persons, not just company mailboxes. Fourth: in the short term, the judicial administration could build a central plausibility check that detects 'dead' electronic mailboxes and automatically triggers alternative steps.

Practically helpful would also be: more transparency in court files about how service was effected; easily accessible advisory hotlines for those affected; and a mandatory verification module when filing claims electronically that reminds lawyers and parties of duties.

Punchy conclusion: the Constitutional Court's judgment is more than an isolated alarm. It is a wake-up call: digital justice must be exercised with care. Otherwise simplification becomes a Trojan horse for procedural injustice. In Mallorca, where many life stories are tied to an address, technological progress must not become a trap; other contentious rulings locally, like Palma: Suspended sentence after €35,000 fraud – was that enough?, underline the stakes.

And one last small everyday tip: if you're expecting something important by email, occasionally check the drawer with old contracts. You never know which abandoned mailbox still makes decisions — and whether a judge will consider it valid.