What it is
Proposal to repeal court fees and set a new fee
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 13 December 2013. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.
Official title: Private member's bill on the repeal of the court fees established by Law 10/2012, of 20 November.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000132· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The bill, introduced by the Socialist Parliamentary Group, proposes repealing the court fees of Law 10/2012 of November 20 and Article 1 of royal decree-law A rule with the force of law that the Government passes because it is urgent. It applies from its publication, but the Congreso must validate it within 30 days or it lapses. 3/2013, restoring the previous rules. The explanatory statement argues those fees hinder access to justice and violate the right to effective judicial protection.
- The bill proposes a new fee for going to court in civil and administrative litigation cases. It applies when filing lawsuits, counterclaims, payment order proceedings and certain appeals, and it is charged equally across the whole country.
- The fee would not apply to inheritance, family and civil status matters, nor to individuals, nonprofit entities and small companies, among other cases.
- The amount due includes a fixed sum depending on the type of case (for example, €150 in an ordinary civil trial or €210 in an ordinary administrative litigation case) plus a percentage of the amount in dispute, capped at €6,000.
Who it affects
- People or companies filing claims or appeals in civil and administrative litigation.: They would pay a fixed amount plus a percentage of the amount in dispute.
- Individuals and nonprofit entities.: They would be exempt from the new fee.
- Consumers claiming small amounts.: The explanatory statement criticizes that the current fee puts them at a disadvantage against large companies.
Words worth knowing
- Tasa judicial (court fee)
- Money paid to the State to start certain court proceedings.
- Tutela judicial efectiva (effective judicial protection)
- The constitutional right to go to court and get a fair ruling.
- Devengo (accrual)
- The moment the obligation to pay the fee arises.
- Orden contencioso-administrativo (administrative litigation jurisdiction)
- The type of court case used to sue public administrations.
- Autoliquidación (self-assessment)
- Calculating and paying the fee yourself using the official form.
- royal decree-law
- A rule with the force of law that the Government passes because it is urgent. It applies from its publication, but the Congreso must validate it within 30 days or it lapses.
- decree-law
- A rule with the force of law that the Government passes because it is urgent. It applies from its publication, but the Congreso must validate it within 30 days or it lapses.
It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries
Where it stands
How far did it get?
It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.
- Introduced13 December 2013Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted17 December 2013The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
23 September 2014
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private member's bill by the Socialist Parliamentary Group, on the repeal of the court fees established by Law 10/2012, of 20 November.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 206· updated 10 Nov
Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.
Your province
How did the deputies from your province vote?
And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.
Or see how most of each province voted
- A Coruña More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Albacete More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Alicante/Alacant More votes against 4 yes · 8 no
- Almería More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Araba/Álava More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Asturias More votes in favour 5 yes · 3 no
- Ávila Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Badajoz More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Barcelona More votes in favour 21 yes · 4 no
- Bizkaia More votes in favour 6 yes · 1 no
- Burgos More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Cáceres Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cádiz More votes against 3 yes · 5 no
- Cantabria More votes against 1 yes · 4 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ceuta More votes against 0 yes · 1 no
- Ciudad Real More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Córdoba Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Cuenca More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes in favour 5 yes · 1 no
- Girona More votes in favour 5 yes · 1 no
- Granada More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Guadalajara More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Huelva More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Huesca Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Illes Balears More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Jaén More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- La Rioja More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Las Palmas More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- León More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Lleida More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Lugo More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Madrid More votes in favour 15 yes · 14 no
- Málaga More votes against 4 yes · 6 no
- Melilla No count 0 yes · 0 no
- Murcia More votes against 2 yes · 8 no
- Navarra More votes in favour 4 yes · 1 no
- Ourense More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Palencia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Pontevedra Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Salamanca More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Segovia More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Sevilla More votes in favour 7 yes · 4 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Teruel More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Toledo More votes against 2 yes · 4 no
- Valencia/València More votes against 7 yes · 9 no
- Valladolid More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Zamora More votes against 1 yes · 2 no
- Zaragoza More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, GC-CiU, GIP and GUPyD. Against, most of Popular en el Congreso.
By province: in 12 most voted in favour; in 33, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 12
- Against: 33
- Tie: 6
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Socialista | 110 | 108 in favour · 2 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 5 | 5 in favour |
| Mixto | 18 | 15 in favour · 3 did not vote |
| GC-CiU | 16 | 14 in favour · 2 did not vote |
| GIP | 11 | 10 in favour · 1 did not vote |
| GUPyD | 5 | 4 in favour · 1 did not vote |
| Popular en el Congreso | 185 | 168 against · 17 did not vote |
What happens next
What happens now?
It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000132
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 206
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
- Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
- We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.