Skip to content

Regulation Tracker · Country · Europe

Spain

Extensivecivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04

EU-level rules also apply — see the European Union record →

As of 4 September 2026 Spain has binding rules on both sides of the bench: the CGPJ's Instruccion 2/2026 governs judges' use of AI, and the CGAE's Circular 3/2026 makes unverified AI-drafted filings a serious disciplinary infraction. Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 frames assisted drafting in courts, and the TSJ Canarias imposed Spain's first hallucination fine.

As of 2026-09-04, Spain has 9 binding rules, official guidance in 5 categories, 0 proposals and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover duty to verify AI output, judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, technological competence, supervision of AI work, bar guidance on generative AI, courts' own AI deployment, horizontal AI statute, vendor due diligence. In 4 categories we found nothing; in 1 the position is not yet determined.

How to read this page
  • Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
  • Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
  • Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
  • Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
  • Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
  • Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.

The rules, category by category

Duty to verify AI output

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

CGAE Interpretive Circular 3/2026, approved by the Pleno on 10 April 2026 and amended on 13 April, provides that signing or filing AI-assisted documents without verification is a serious infraction under article 125.u of the profession's statute; the signer is solely responsible and a tool error is no excuse.

Judges' use of AI

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

CGPJ Instruccion 2/2026, agreed by the Pleno on 28 January 2026 and published in the state gazette on 30 January, binds judges and magistrates: effective human control, no autonomous decision-making, no unapproved tools except for study with open-source material and no judicial data, full personal responsibility, CGPJ supervision and training.

AI barred from deciding cases

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Instruccion 2/2026 prohibits AI operating autonomously to decide, evaluate facts or evidence, or interpret and apply the law, and bars incorporating AI content without critical personal validation. Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 article 57 allows AI-assisted drafts only as support that cannot become a resolution without the judge's intervention.

Technological competence

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Article 21.2 of the code of conduct on responsible and diligent use of technology, as interpreted by Circular 3/2026: lawyers must know the tools they use, use AI only in fields they master, and are liable for uncritical delegation. The Madrid guide and the CGAE white paper call for mandatory digital training.

Bar guidance on generative AI

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Binding: CGAE Circular 3/2026 on generative AI and verification. Guidance: the Madrid Bar Guide of Good Practice of October 2025 and the CGAE White Paper on AI and the Legal Profession presented on 30 January 2026. The press also cites a 2024 CGAE AI guide and Circular 1/2025, which were not opened.

Courts' own AI deployment

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 regulates automated, proactive and assisted actions in the justice administration: assisted actions produce drafts under full human control and take effect only after validation. Instruccion 2/2026 article 9 restricts judges to systems supplied by the competent administrations, with CGPJ supervision of personal-data processing.

Vendor due diligence

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Judges may use only AI systems provided by the competent public administrations for judicial work under Instruccion 2/2026 article 9. For lawyers, the Madrid Bar guide covers vendor selection, including no-training clauses, EU data residency and article 28 GDPR processor agreements, as guidance.

Client data in AI tools

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

The Madrid Bar Guide of Good Practice on AI of October 2025 addresses client data in AI tools; Circular 3/2026 expressly defers confidentiality and professional secrecy to a separate circular. The press reports a CGAE Circular 1/2025 on professional secrecy and technology, which was not opened.

Mandatory AI training

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

Instruccion 2/2026 commits the CGPJ to provide AI training for judges, though not as a duty on each judge. The CGAE white paper and the Madrid Bar guide recommend training, and Circular 3/2026 lists knowing the tools as a diligence factor. There is no mandatory AI continuing education.

Sanctions for AI misuse

Set by case law

verified 2026-09-04

TSJ Navarra issued a warning without sanction in September 2024. TSJ Canarias fined a lawyer about 420 to 450 euro under article 247 of the civil procedure law for 48 non-existent Supreme Court citations in February 2026. TSJ Navarra archived article 247 proceedings in April 2026 after an apology. Circular 3/2026 adds discipline.

Self-represented litigants

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.

AI-generated evidence

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Consumer AI legal services

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-04

No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.

Arbitration and ADR

Not yet determined

verified 2026-09-04

Not researched because the research budget was exhausted; no Spanish arbitral-institution AI rule was identified.

Official documents recorded for Spain (8)

Court incidents on the record in Spain

all incidents →

Cite this page

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Spain" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/es (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.