Jurisprudential endorsement of the assessed compensation for unfair dismissal
Strictly opinion pieces that reflect the author's unique style. These opinion pieces must be based on verified data and be respectful of individuals, even if their actions are criticized. All opinion pieces by individuals outside the EL PAÍS editorial team will include, after the last line, a byline—no matter how well-known the author may be—indicating their position, title, political affiliation (if applicable), or main occupation, or any that is or was related to the topic addressed.
The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its rulings of December 19, 2024, and July 6, 2025 , confirmed the compliance with international law of the fixed compensation for unfair dismissal in Spain. This jurisprudence closes the door on judges establishing additional compensation beyond that legally provided for in each case of unfair dismissal.
This judicial interpretation is based on the application of international standards, Article 10 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Treaty 158 and Article 24 of the European Social Charter (ETUC), which mandate signatory States to establish "adequate compensation or appropriate reparation" for unjustified dismissals.
With sound legal judgment, the Supreme Court clarifies that this mandate requires internal legal development , without specifying, determining, or quantifying the "adequate compensation or appropriate reparation" , making it unfeasible to directly apply it through judicial means.
Spain has implemented this mandate in the current legal regulation on unfair dismissal, with adequate compensation of 33 days' salary per year, capped at 24 months, and appropriate compensation for public unemployment benefits.
The decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), as the Supreme Court correctly states, are not enforceable or directly applicable between individuals, lack binding force within the framework of the ECSR itself, and are not relevant to judicial review. These decisions, of a political nature, result in recommendations from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (EC) addressed to the government to promote regulatory reforms, but they do not affect the exercise of judicial functions.
These solid legal foundations, anchored in the CSE and with precedents in French and Italian jurisprudence, explain why the ECSR decisions against Spain for violation of Article 24 CSE in unfair dismissals do not call into question the conclusion reached.
This jurisprudential endorsement of fixed compensation for unfair dismissal, in accordance with international law, provides legal certainty and does not subject every dismissal case to open judicial review. This corresponds to a specific labor system of compensation for damages, distinct from civil law, widely used in all European countries.
Fixed and capped compensation, which compensates for job loss in unfair dismissals, benefits workers, who are freed from the need to prove damages; companies, which have certainty; employment, with neutral contracting effects; and the judicial system, which would be overburdened by open-ended compensation, when agreements between companies and workers are common due to this predictability.
It is now up to the Government to decide whether or not to follow the Council of Europe's policy recommendations to move toward a civil system of compensation for damages at the discretion of the courts in each unfair dismissal. I believe the advantages of a specific labor system over a civil system are evident, and it does not seem advisable to pursue this path.
Jesús Lahera Forteza is Professor of Labor Law and Social Security and a Fedea researcher.
EL PAÍS
