August is traditionally considered a non-working month for many judicial proceedings in Spain. However, this rule cannot automatically be applied to every time limit connected with bringing an action before the courts.

In Judgment 894/2025 of 1 July, the Spanish Supreme Court clarified this issue in relation to claims seeking recognition of judicial error: the three-month period established by law is substantive in nature and constitutes a limitation period. As a result, August must be included when calculating that period.

The background to the dispute

The case examined by the Administrative Chamber arose from a claim for judicial error concerning several decisions related to authorisation to enter premises in the context of a tax inspection.

After the available preliminary remedies had been exhausted, an application for annulment of proceedings was dismissed by an order notified in July 2024. The subsequent claim for judicial error was filed in November.

The decisive question was therefore whether August should be excluded from the period available to bring the action.

The Supreme Court held that it should not and declared the claim out of time.

A substantive, not procedural, time limit

The key point in the judgment lies in the legal nature of the period.

Article 293.1(a) of the Organic Law on the Judiciary provides that an action seeking recognition of judicial error must be brought within three months from the date on which it could first have been exercised.

The Supreme Court reiterated that this is not a procedural time limit, but a substantive limitation period.

That distinction has important practical consequences.

Procedural time limits are linked to the conduct of court proceedings and may be affected by rules on non-working days and months. Substantive time limits, by contrast, define the period within which a right or action itself may be exercised.

For this reason, in cases of this kind the period must be calculated from date to date, without excluding non-working days or the month of August.

Why does the general rule on August not apply?

Article 128.2 of the Law governing the Administrative Courts, subject to certain exceptions, provides that August does not count for the purposes of the time limit for bringing administrative proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court considers that this rule does not apply to an action for judicial error.

The reason is that the three-month period is not the procedural deadline for bringing an ordinary administrative appeal. It relates instead to an autonomous and exceptional action seeking a declaration of judicial error, which may later serve as a prerequisite for a claim for State liability.

Likewise, the fact that August is generally a non-working month for judicial activity does not turn a substantive period into a procedural one.

The Supreme Court corrects an earlier approach

One of the most relevant aspects of the judgment is that the Chamber expressly acknowledges that there had been an earlier precedent in which August had been excluded from the calculation.

The new judgment corrects that approach and aligns with other Supreme Court decisions that had already treated judicial error claims as being subject to a limitation period that runs continuously, without excluding non-working days.

The ruling therefore provides greater clarity on a particularly sensitive issue: once a limitation period expires, the right to bring the action is lost.

A distinction with important practical consequences

The judgment highlights a point that goes beyond this specific case: not every time limit connected with court proceedings is necessarily procedural.

Correctly identifying the legal nature of a time limit is essential, particularly where exceptional actions are subject to short periods for filing.

In judicial error cases, the practical conclusion is clear: the three-month period established by Article 293.1(a) of the Organic Law on the Judiciary must be calculated from date to date, and August neither suspends nor extends that period.

The ruling therefore reinforces the importance of analysing the specific legal framework applicable to each action and avoiding the automatic application of general procedural rules on non-working periods to time limits that are substantive in nature.

At Solium Legal, we advise clients on court proceedings, State liability and complex procedural and administrative law matters.