📢 Updated 2026-10-03
In short: the Supreme Court annulled specific clauses and articles of RD 1155/2024, but NOT the procedures as a whole. The changes affect temporary work agencies (ETT), the economic dependence of parents and grandparents, and immediate care for minors whose age is uncertain. They also affect automatic refusal over criminal records for family members of Spanish citizens, only in the cases covered by art. 20 TFEU, and the residence of minor children accompanied by a resident parent or guardian (arts. 159 and 160).
In person or by representative? Not applicable (this is a change to the regulation, not a personal procedure).
The Supreme Court Judgment of 8 July 2026 (Third Chamber), with a Correction Order of 1 September 2026, partially granted the administrative lawsuit filed by the Association Coordinating Neighbourhoods for monitoring minors and youth, the Association for Human Rights in Spain, and Immigration Law Professionals Network.
Annulled provisions (fallo, exact articles):
- Art. 101.1, third paragraph — temporary work agencies (ETT): annulled the ban on an ETT holding residence and work authorizations for seasonal activities, or being authorized through a change of employer or in a chain of contract concatenations. The rest of art. 101 stays the same.
- Art. 94.1.f) — father, mother or guardian of a minor of Spanish nationality: annulled the clause "this relationship must have been established under Spanish law". This is one of the residence routes for family members of Spanish citizens; if you have temporary protection, see family member of a Spanish citizen on temporary protection (EX-24).
- Art. 196.b) — family reunion with ascendants: annulled the requirement that economic dependence "be produced in the country of origin or provenance." Dependence can now be demonstrated after the relative is already in Spain. The family reunion procedure itself remains in force.
- Arts. 97.4 and 98.1 — criminal records of family members of Spanish citizens: annulled the clauses that set AUTOMATIC denial for criminal records without individualised assessment, but only in the cases covered by art. 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Union citizenship). In those cases a case-by-case evaluation is required, though criminal history remains a relevant factor for refusal decisions. The ruling does not annul the criminal-record rules of other authorizations, such as arraigo.
- Art. 159.1 and art. 160.1 — minor children of residents: annulled the words «solteras» (art. 159.1) and «solteros» (art. 160.1), meaning "unmarried" for the child. These articles regulate temporary residence of an accompanied foreign minor child: born in Spain (art. 159) or not born in Spain (art. 160). The child no longer has to be unmarried; the other requirements remain.
- Art. 159.1 and art. 160.2 — minor children of residents: in art. 159.1 (child born in Spain) the requirement of not having left Spanish territory since birth was annulled; the administration may require that the child has had effective habitual residence in Spain, taking temporary and justified absences into account. In art. 160.2 (child with a resident guardian) the clause "provided this relationship was established under Spanish law" was annulled. The Correction Order of 1 September 2026 concerns art. 159.1 only: the non-absence condition should be interpreted as maintaining "effective habitual residence in Spain", so temporary, justified absences alone do not exclude the minor. The 6-month deadline in art. 159.1 to apply for the permit was not annulled (the Order rejected that request because the judgment had already dismissed it). Procedure and details with temporary protection: residence permit for a child (EX-25).
- Art. 166.1, immediate care for possible minors: annulled the clause "where applicable". The immediate care under art. 35.3 of LO 4/2000 is mandatory and unconditional from the moment the police report the location of an undocumented foreigner whose minor status cannot be established with certainty.
- Art. 197.2, in full — mandatory electronic communication: also annulled by this ruling (the same article separately annulled by the Judgment of 29 July 2026, case 21/2025, with near-identical fallo wording). The absolute obligation of electronic communication in immigration files is removed, without prejudice to the Government establishing it for specific categories if justified and proportionate.
Practical impact: if you have a pending file in any of these categories, it is important you contact the office handling it to learn how the ruling affects your specific case. The published ruling says nothing about files that have already been decided; if yours has, check with a professional.
Official source: BOE-A-2026-19632.
Informational only; for your specific file, contact the competent administration (Migration Delegation, Regional Interior Ministry, Directorate General of Migration) and an immigration law professional.
