The Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) has settled this debate in its ruling 1268/2025 of 16 December (Rec. 738/2025), issued in the context of an appeal for the unification of case law (recurso de casación). The Fourth Division of the court concluded that the dismissal becomes effective in the moment the letter of dismissal is received by the dismissed employee, and not from the time of deregistration with Social Security, even if the communication of the latter occurs first.
However, the Court also confirmed that the fact that an employee had previously been informed of their dismissal by a text message from Social Security does not in itself constitute a breach of the formal requirements of Article 53.1 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de Trabajadores, ET). Consequently, the dismissal cannot be deemed unfair solely based on the time difference between the receipt of the text message and the (later) delivery of the letter of dismissal. In the eyes of the court, this held especially true in the reviewed case since the appeal was based solely on this alleged formal irregularity (date of knowledge of deregistration vs. date of delivery of the letter of dismissal).
In the case at hand, the facts were as follows:
- An employee who had been with the company for 13 years was served with notice of termination for objective reasons on 15 June 2023.
- In the letter of termination, the company specified 12 June 2023 as the effective date of the termination, i.e. three days before the date of delivery.
- The company had deregistered the employee with Social Security with effects from 12 June 2023.
- On 14 June 2023 – one day before receiving the letter and two days after the date of deregistration with Social Security – the employee received a text message from the TGSS informing her of this deregistration with effects from 12 June 2023.
The employee’s lawyer claimed that the contradiction between the effective dates violated Article 53.1 ET and that the termination was therefore unfair. In his line of arguments, he drew on the ruling of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (Málaga) of 15 July 2024 (Rec. 1131/2024), which defined the effective date as the date of “certain knowledge of the dismissal”. In the present case, this would have been the date of notification by means of the text message of the TGSS. The employee contended, that the company should have already fulfilled the formal requirements at that point, making the termination unfair.
However, the Spanish Supreme Court did not share this opinion. It rejected the appellant’s argument and instead followed the reasoning of the challenged ruling of the Supreme Court of Valencia of 5 November 2024 [Rec. 1751/2024. Essentially, the court based its decision on three main points:
- The date on which the termination takes effect is the date on which the letter is delivered, not the date stated in the document itself nor the date resulting from the deregistration with Social Security. Termination is an act which only takes effect upon receipt, i.e. in this case, the moment the employee has received the letter of dismissal. The date specified by the company is not valid if it does not correspond to the date of the actual handover.
- The calculation of the legal period for claims relating to the termination also depends on the receipt/handover of the letter. In the event of discrepancies between the dates – delivery, deregistration from Social Security and the date stated in the letter – the 20-day period begins to run from the date of actual delivery. This does not prevent the employee from preparing the application for a conciliation hearing (papeleta) as soon they are aware of the termination, but this knowledge does not replace formal handover of the dismissal.
- Deregistration from Social Security before delivery of the letter does not, in itself, render the termination unfair. Although it may constitute an administrative irregularity, it does not replace the written notification and does not invalidate the termination, provided that the letter meets the requirements of Article 53.1 ET.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling confirms a structural principle of legal guarantees in termination matters: form is important, delivery is important, and employee guarantees are important. It is not possible to equate the TGSS’s text message – an automated administrative act – with a formal letter of termination, which is the only valid instrument that can determine the date on which the termination of the contract takes effect and thus determine procedural deadlines.