Justice

Mexicans have been harassed by banks and financiers over the phone for years. Justice has just stopped their feet

by

In Mexico, debt collection by telephone has been part of the background noise for many people for years. Insistent calls, messages at odd hours and contacts that cross the line of reason have turned collection into one of those abuses that are often suffered before even understanding who should be responsible for them. For a long time, the pressure was concentrated on the office that dials or writes. But behind this harassment there is more than just an unknown number on the other end of the line: there is also a financial institution that hired him. The key resolution. The underlying novelty is not minor. On January 15, 2026, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) closed the door to one of the arguments with which some financial entities sought to release sanctions linked to their reports on collection offices. The ruling confirmed the validity of the framework that allows the CONDUSEF fine them when they fail to comply with these information obligations. According to the SCJN statement, in addition, there is a time limit to act: the authority has a maximum of 180 calendar days, counted from the expiration of the period granted for the hearing guarantee, to issue and notify the corresponding resolution. What this does change. The scope of the ruling goes beyond a technical discussion between courts and financial entities. The responsibility does not end with the firm that engages in improper practices, but can also reach the financial institution that hired it if it fails to comply with its reporting duties to the CONDUSEF. In other words, the entity can no longer hide so easily that the harassment was carried out by a third party. If you failed to report what the law requires, you may also be sanctioned. The origin of the fight. To understand why this case ended up in the Supreme Court, you have to go back to October 14, 2022. That day it was published in the DOF the Provision on Records before CONDUSEF, which established new obligations for financial institutions in their relationship with collection offices. Among other things, the rule obliged them to register these third parties with the Registry of Collection Offices and to submit reports on user complaints. The fines that came later were born precisely from that previous framework. The route the banks took. After the fines for non-compliance with these reports began, several financial entities chose to fight the matter in court. These resources moved between 2023 and 2025 until they ended up in the Amparo in Review 323/2025. In the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, the SCJN itself explained that the sanctioned entity alleged that the rules did not make it clear who was obliged to provide the information and that there were no clear time limits to sanction it. That was, in essence, the defense with which he tried to overturn the punishment. The Plenary’s response. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that these rules left financial institutions on uncertain ground. He assured that the framework that regulates reports on collection dispatches is clear and coherent, because it identifies the obligated subjects, establishes the charges that must be met and allows for precisely locating when there is non-compliance. For this reason, it concluded that the principles of typicity, reservation of law and legal certainty invoked by the entity that promoted the protection were not violated. What changes from now on. Rather than inaugurating a new rule, this ruling consolidates one that already existed and that had been challenged by financial entities. The difference is important, because based on this criterion it is much more difficult to maintain that there was not enough clarity to comply or to be sanctioned. In practical terms, the decision strengthens the position of CONDUSEF and makes it clearer that financial entities can also be administratively sanctioned when they fail to comply with the information obligations provided for by the regulation. Images | pvproductions (Freepik) In Xataka | Mexico has an ambitious plan to be the tenth economy in the world and that involves technology: semiconductors

The Aragón justice system has shown how expensive it can be for a company to get involved with dismissal letters: 46,665 euros

by

There are mistakes that can be corrected with a simple apology. And then there are errors that, once committedhave legal consequences that no apology can undo. A freight transport company in Huesca discovered this in the worst possible way when it fired one of its employees, regretted it days later, trying to back down, and then fired him again. All of this while the worker was at home on medical leave. What seemed like an internal bureaucratic mess ended up in court and with compensation of more than 46,000 euros. The dismissal letters the devil carries them. Two layoffs, one leave and fifteen days of chaos. As documented in the sentence In the case that reached the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, the worker had been in the company since 2011, with an indefinite contract, and had accumulated more than a year of medical leave due to a cervical injury when, on December 14, 2023, he received a burofax from his company informing him of the disciplinary dismissal. As indicated in the dismissal letter, the employee had carried out incompatible activities with his low status. The worker did not take long to react and began the process to challenge the dismissal in court. But then something unexpected happened. On December 20, just six days later, a second burofax arrived in which the company declared that the first dismissal was annulled and that an internal disciplinary file was opened in its place. Not satisfied with this, on December 29 they received a third burofax containing another dismissal letter, this time accompanied by the payroll and the corresponding settlement. Within two weeks, the employee had received two dismissal communications and one cancellation while was still convalescing at home. Why the company wanted to back down. As stated in the ruling, the company argued that the first dismissal had been a procedural error and considered that the initial letter had formal defects related to the applicable collective agreement, since the worker had questioned by email whether the merchandise transportation agreement or the chemical industry agreement should apply. The company’s intention was to annul that first dismissal, open the correct disciplinary file and issue a new letter in order. From his point of view, the only real dismissal was that of December 29, which had never been challenged by the worker. The company also tried to demonstrate to the court that the underlying reason for the dismissal was legitimate: a private detective report recorded the worker carrying out physical activity during his medical leave, which he interpreted as a simulation of the disability or, at least, as a behavior incompatible with recovery. A dismissal letter is not a draft. The problem for the company is that the dismissal letter is not a simple administrative communication with the employee, but is a document with key legal value with which an entire dismissal process begins with very well-defined deadlines and procedures to give maximum guarantees to both companies and employees. He article 55.1 of the Workers’ Statute establishes that disciplinary dismissal must be notified in writing, with the facts that motivate it and the effective date. Once that letter is delivered, a legal mechanism is put in place that neither party can stop unilaterally. The law itself contemplates the possibility for the company to retract the dismissal and provides a way out when a company wants to correct a poorly formulated dismissal, but as stated in article 55.2 of the Workers’ Statute, it is subject to very precise conditions and deadlines. Furthermore, it is only admitted if, during that rectification period, the company keeps the worker registered with Social Security and pays them all salaries. In this case, the ruling states that it was not proven that the company had complied with that requirement, which blocked this means of rectification. Without the worker’s acceptance, there is no turning back. On the other hand, and beyond the administrative procedures, there is an additional requirement that the company did not comply with in its process of rectification of the first dismissal: for the employment relationship to be restored, the worker who has been dismissed must expressly accept it. It is not enough for the company to declare on its own that the dismissal is without effect. The Supreme Court already established that a communicated dismissal determines that the worker is not obliged to accept any subsequent retraction from the company, and that claiming before the courts in that situation does not constitute any type of abuse. In this case, the employee did not explicitly accept the annulment of the first dismissal or return to his position. The email he sent to the company questioning the applicable collective agreement was not considered by the court as a tacit acceptance of the withdrawal, but rather as confirmation of his dismissal status. The employment relationship, in the eyes of the law, had been terminated on December 14 and no subsequent communication from the company could change that unilaterally. The outcome: more than 46,000 euros in compensation. The TSJ of Aragón also ruled out the argument about physical activity during sick leave. It was proven that the outputs recorded by detective They were walks or runs of about 40 minutes of moderate duration that, according to the medical assessment, were not contraindicated for the worker’s recovery from the cervical injury. With all these arguments on the table, the court declared the dismissal inadmissible, the first, because the second no longer had any legal value, and established compensation of 46,665.34 euros, calculated based on age of the worker. The company appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, which confirmed it in its entirety and also ordered it to pay 800 euros in costs. Dismissal letters, especially if they are not well formulated, are carried by the devil. In Xataka | He had been in the same notary office for 16 years and was fired for not passing the trial period: the Supreme Court ended up seeing the … Read more

If the question is whether you can go on vacation or play sports while on sick leave, justice has the answer: it depends.

by

There is a widespread belief about what it means to be on medical leave. Many people believe that being on medical leave is incompatible with doing any type of activity physical or going on a trip, and that doing so may be grounds for disciplinary dismissal. It is a widespread fear, but the reality is quite different. Knowing the nuances around this issue can prevent workers and companies from be seen in court. A recent sentence issued by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community confirms what Spanish judges have been repeating for years in their rulings: that the problem is never the activity itself, but rather whether carrying it out affects in some way the process of recovery from the illness or injury for which one is on sick leave. That detail changes absolutely everything. ​What the law says, and what it doesn’t say Although many people believe it this way, no Spanish labor law expressly prohibits playing sports. or go on vacation when you are on medical leave. There is no article that says “if you are on sick leave, you can’t do this or that.” What the Workers’ Statute does include, in its article 54 that regulates the conditions of disciplinary dismissal, is that a company can fire you if you seriously breach your employment obligations or act in bad faith. And that’s where these cases fit. The principle that truly governs these cases is not prohibition, but compatibility with recovery. In practice, this means that when you are on medical leave, you have an obligation not to do things that slow down or contradict your own recovery process. Not because the law expressly prohibits it, but because acting in a manner inconsistent with your medical diagnosis can be interpreted as a serious lack of honesty with your company and with Social Security, which covers a large part of your salary during that period. When the judges have ruled in favor of the company The courts have supported layoffs disciplinary action when the activity carried out during the medical leave was clearly incompatible with the declared illness or injury, especially if it occurred several times and the company was able to demonstrate it with medical reports and even with the provision of evidence by a private detective. The most recent case is the sentence which was resolved by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community in January 2026, which stated that a worker was on sick leave due to a lumbar injury compatible with limited effort and moderate physical activity and was investigated by private detectives. During that period, it was confirmed that the employee was doing intense and repeated physical exercise for several weeks in a row (running, mountain routes lasting several hours, gym training, etc.), an activity that, according to the court, was incompatible with his illness and made his recovery difficult. The court declared the disciplinary dismissal valid not for playing sports, but for doing an activity contrary to the recommendations for recovery from sick leave due to low back pain. In a similar vein, the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, also declared valid the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who was on medical leave due to an injury to the cruciate ligament in his knee and had to undergo surgery. During his recovery, the employee He participated in several padel tournamentsand even winning some of them while on medical leave due to his knee injury. The judges have also ruled in favor of the worker Case law also has numerous examples to the contrary, where the dismissal was considered unjustified because, although physical activity was recognized, it could not be demonstrated that the activity harmed recovery from the injury. An example of this is the who judged the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia in which an employee on leave due to depression and anxiety traveled to Albania for 12 days. As and how I analyzed Iberleythe Murcian High Court declared that the trip did not interfere with recovery nor did it contravene medical recommendations, which is why it declared the dismissal unfair. It has not been the only case. The Supreme Court confirmed in November 2024 that the dismissal of a driver who played paddle tennis while on sick leave due to low back pain was inappropriate, because her own doctor had recommended in writing that she do moderate exercise, including that type of activity. The key is always in the doctor As can be seen in the different examples, the key is not the sport that is practiced or the trip itself, but what the doctor says about that activity and whether that activity negatively affects recovery. The judges limit themselves to analyzing whether the worker’s medical reports authorized or recommended what he did, whether the company was able to demonstrate with an expert report that it was detrimental to recovery, and whether the worker repeated the behavior in a way that would suggest that he was simulating his state. A worker on sick leave due to depression or anxiety who is advised by his psychiatrist to go out, exercise or travel has every right to do so. In fact, it can be an important part of the treatment. For all this, the most useful practical advice is to always have the doctor’s authorization in writing before carrying out any physical activity or travel during sick leave. This role does not guarantee that the company will not consider a disciplinary dismissal or that the judge will always agree with you, as some of the previous cases demonstrate, but it makes a real difference when it comes to defending yourself. Without that documented medical support, courts tend to side with the company when there is evidence of activity. In Xataka | A company fired the same employee twice in eight months. The court has annulled them and returns to work with 25,000 euros Image | Freepik (pressfoto)

A man bought Lambo.com to ask for 75 million from Lamborghini: justice has taken it from him and his problems do not end there

by

In 2018, an Arizona domain investor thought he had found a four leaf clover digital by taking control of the “Lambo.com” domain for $10,000. The man was convinced that one day he could resell it for a huge amount thanks to Lamborghini’s fame. Years later, the judges have given him bad news: not only will he not get that money, but he will be left without the domain and with a considerable legal bill. I am “Lambo” for life According to the documents In the case, Richard Blair bought the Lambo.com domain in February 2018 for $10,000, seeing in it a business opportunity linked to the enormous popularity of the Italian car manufacturer and the colloquial name by which its supercars were known: lambos. In Xataka Lamborghini will only manufacture 29 units of its latest supercar but don’t be in a hurry: they were already sold before being presented Shortly after the purchase, Blair began using “Lambo” as a nickname online, although until then there was no sign of him identifying himself that way. Blair maintained that this nickname was not related to the Italian brand, but rather was a play on the English word “Lamb“, that is, lamb, trying to present an alternative explanation that would distance it from the universe of supercars. At the same time, he redirected Lambo.com to another page where he published personal content and from which he presented the domain as an asset for sale, trying to show that the use of the name It was linked to its own identity and not to an attempt to take advantage of the car manufacturer’s reputation. In Xataka Buying a Lamborghini is a luxury reserved for a few: building one with used parts and an Ikea sink is another level Lambo’s price escalation The case records show that Blair soon set a very high price for the Lambo.com domain. The domain was first listed for sale on August 6, 2020 for $1,129,298. On December 23, 2020, the figure already tripled, rising to 1.5 million dollars and on January 27, 2021, it already reached 3.3 million dollars. Far from stopping, the owner continued to increase expectations and on September 23, 2021 the price rose to $12 million, on August 11, 2022 it made a considerable jump to $58 million, and on September 7, 2023 the figure reached $75 million. According to pointed Road&Track, during that period Blair received several offers for the domain but rejected them, because his objective was not to sell it to any buyer, but to get Lamborghini to pay an exorbitant amount for an address that fits the colloquial form of his name. Blair’s move did not go unnoticed by the Italian manufacturer, which in April 2022 filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), under the protection of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy UDRP), requesting the transfer of the Lambo.com domain to the company considering that it was trying to profit from a name clearly linked to its trademark registered by the supercar manufacturer. In August 2022, WIPO concluded that Blair acted in bad faith and ordered the transfer of the domain to Lamborghini, understanding that he had no prior rights to the term “Lambo”, that he only began using that alias after purchasing the domain, and that he was trying take advantage of brand awareness to profit. Despite that decision, Blair decided to go to federal courts to appeal the WIPO resolution and maintain control over Lambo.com, prolonging the conflict and thus assuming new legal costs. The final blow of the courts As the conflict progressed, Blair redirected the domain to a personal website where he published a text in which he warned that he would be confronted by those who tried to take away his domains. “I AM LAMBO of LAMBO.com and I will defend, defeat and humiliate those who try to steal any of the trademarks from my domain name, including my nickname,” a statement attributed to Richard Blair himself. {“videoId”:”x957t4e”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Lamborghini Countach”, “tag”:”Lamborghini”, “duration”:”163″} The litigation ended up in district court of the United States, which supported the WIPO resolution and concluded that Blair had no rights to the name, demonstrating that he did not carry out any real activity on the page and that he attempted to benefit from the reputation of the Lamborghini brand. The result is that the manufacturer has obtained the Lambo.com domain without paying a single cent, while Blair has lost both his initial investment of $10,000 and the sales opportunities. In addition, the court has ordered him to pay legal costs, so buying Lambo.com not only has not brought him the expected benefits, but he has had to put money out of his pocket. Greed broke the bag. In this case, one that came loaded with money. In Xataka | In Dubai they don’t know what to do with so many abandoned luxury supercars: the less shiny side of getting rich Image | Lamborghini (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news A man bought Lambo.com to ask for 75 million from Lamborghini: justice has taken it from him and his problems do not end there was originally published in Xataka by Ruben Andres .

A company identified an employee on its payroll as “buzzed.” Justice has added some zeros to the joke

by

A payroll can be much more than a payment document: in this case, it became judicial evidence and object of compensation for damage to honor. A company in the Basque Country included the word “Zumbada” to identify the employee as a beneficiary on two successive payrolls. It so happened that the employee’s ex-husband was also the co-owner of the company. A ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country has condemned the company to pay 10,000 euros in damages to the employee’s honor. A list for “Zumbada”. According to is detailed in the sentence issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, the worker carried out administrative tasks in the company of her ex-husband, of whom he was in the middle of the judicial process of divorce and custody of their common son with a disability. In this context, the employee received two payrolls in which the word “Zumbada” appeared in the section intended to indicate the name of the beneficiary of the payroll. As it could not be otherwise, the employee filed a lawsuit against the company. As the employee herself stated in an intervention in the program “And now Sonsoles” hosted by Sonsoles Ónega on July 27, “There was a first trial for the crime of minor insults in which it was the other partner, Iñaki, who took responsibility for having made that transfer.” However, the employee resorted to court again when she understood that it was the company that had to respond for her work mistreatment, arguing that she suffered a workplace harassment for the humiliating work shown towards her on her payroll. It’s not harassment. In July, the Social Court handed down a ruling arguing that, however reprehensible, the company’s conduct did not constitute workplace harassmentconsidering it a sporadic act. The labor lawyer Juanma Lorente agreed with the court’s ruling and analyzed the case in a published video on his Instagram profile. “We are not talking about workplace harassment, but rather a breach by the company, and you can file a complaint against it. But it is not workplace harassment. They have to be repeated over time for approximately six months,” said the lawyer, indicating that the employee’s legal advice had not been correct. The TSJPV did not let it pass. Although in the first instance the Social Court dismissed the claim. The ruling was taken to the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, where on October 25 it revoked the first ruling, recognizing that the company had violated the employee’s right to honor by using the term “Zumbada” on its payroll. The ruling emphasizes that “the inclusion of derogatory terms in a list generates a detriment to the dignity of the worker and constitutes an act contrary to the fundamental principles of respect and honorability”, indicating that the offense occurred in a public context given that the document had to be processed by the employees of the financial institution, bypassing the area of ​​privacy. For this reason, the Court has sentenced the two partners of the company (one of them her ex-husband) to pay compensation of 10,000 euros for damage to the employee’s honor. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that payroll processing has been used as a channel to inflict humiliating treatment on employees. In 2024, a baker included the concept “Nómina Abril Maricón” on the payroll of one of its employees, which led to a conviction and the seizure of his assets to face a compensatory compensation. In Xataka | An employee put the handbrake on the company van when he was the passenger. He was fired, but from his company Image | Wikimedia Commons (Zarateman), Unsplash (Resume Genius)

If the question is whether they can geolocate you during your work day and use it to fire you, justice leaves no doubt: yes

by

Know that your company knows where are you every minute of your workday can generate discomfort and even doubts about its legality. However, the courts have been clarifying this area for some time. A recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias does so with unusual forcefulness. The case involves an elevator maintenance technician and an application time control which recorded, in addition to his schedule, the exact point from which he clocked in. What seemed like a routine tool ended up becoming the key to a disciplinary dismissal which today is fully validated by justice. Schedule control with advanced features. As detailed in the sentence issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias, a maintenance employee of an elevator company used a time control application installed on the corporate mobile. His function was simple: mark the beginning and end of his day and do it from the place where he attended to each incident. The company distributed the routes on a daily basis and registration had to be done at the customer’s location, not from another point. However, the employee’s workday began to show strange patterns. In one month, the company detected up to 11 outbound signings made from the employee’s home and coinciding with work hours. The record indicated that, instead of closing his last intervention from the customer’s location, the technician finished his day on time, but already at home. Notices, warnings… and a disciplinary dismissal. The company did not act immediately. Before the dismissal, he issued several internal warnings to the worker and reminded him of the operation of the application, pointing out the irregularities detected and reminding him the obligation to sign from each real location. Even so, the signings from home continued, so the company interpreted that the agreed working day was being breached. Finally, he proceeded to the disciplinary dismissal, considering it proven that the technician ended his day prematurely and from a place outside the workplace. The Social Chamber of the TSJA confirmed the decision of disciplinary dismissal and validated the use of geolocation as evidence. What the law says. The TSJA ruling is based on the article 20.3 of the Workers’ Statutewhich specifies “the employer may adopt the surveillance and control measures he deems most appropriate to verify compliance by the worker with his or her work obligations and duties.” Therefore, and given the mobility nature of the position, the time control system with geolocation was justified. In addition, Organic Law 3/2018 on Data Protection (LOPDGDD) specifically regulates geolocation systems. Your article 90 requires clear information about the existence of these systems, their purpose, the scope of the processing and data protection rights. In this case, the app was corporate, the device belonged to the company, the worker knew how it worked, and the application only recorded the location when the application was opened. Taking all these regulations into account, the TSJA considered that the company acted within the law and used a proportional tool, linked to strictly labor purposes and correctly communicated to the employee. Time nuances. He Workers Statute It also precisely delimits when the day begins and ends. Article 34.5 establishes that “working time will be calculated so that both at the beginning and at the end of the daily shift the worker is at his or her workplace.” This is where we have to differentiate workplace and job position. It is not a minor nuance: effective working time begins when one is operationally available to perform the assigned functions. This does not mean that the employee must arrive at the workplace at the agreed time, but rather that he must be at his workplace at that time. If there are 10 minutes from the company entrance to your position and you arrive at the work center at your agreed time, you would be arriving 10 minutes late. The same applies at departure time. That employee must remain at his position until the agreed time, and then collect his things and leave the company. If you are leaving the company premises at the agreed time at the end of the day, you would be leaving 10 minutes early. The only exception to the rule: there is no job to go to. The Supreme Court has recognized a relevant exception: When the company does not have offices, premises or any physical space where workers can start their day, the employee’s home can be considered a valid starting point for the day. This doctrine applies especially to completely decentralized companies whose workers only move from client to client. In these situations (well accredited and exceptional), the travel time from home to the first client can be counted as workbecause the home assumes the function of the only available operating point. But as long as there is a work center or a clearly defined place where the activity can begin, this exception does not apply. Clocking in from home, as in the case of the Asturias elevator technician, is not justified and is a non-compliance with working hours. In Xataka | Breakfast and the first 15 minutes of entry are work: the Supreme Court sets the limits of time control Image | Unsplash (Kevin Grieve)

Justice condemns Meta to pay 479 million euros to Spanish media for unfair competition

by

Meta has been condemned by the Commercial Court No. 15 of Madrid to pay 479 million euros to 87 media and news agencies integrated into the Information Media Association. According to the ruling, picked up by AMIthe company is considered to have gained an unfair competitive advantage by illicitly using personal data on Facebook and Instagram for “behavioral advertising.” The resolution, dated November 19, 2025, is not final and can be appealed. We have requested comments from Meta and are awaiting a response. The origin of the case dates back to May 2018, when The General Data Protection Regulation came into force and Meta modified the legal basis for processing the personal data of its users, moving from consent to the supposed need for a contract. On December 1, 2023, the News Media Association filed the lawsuit in court. The preliminary hearing was held on November 27, 2024 and the oral hearing took place on October 1 and 2, 2025, after an economic claim of between 551 million euros. GDPR violation, not advertising violation. The resolution focuses on the way in which personal data was obtained and processed, rather than on the advertising activity itself. According to the ruling, the processing lacked a valid legal basis under the GDPR, because the contract formula does not replace informed consent. This violation is considered sufficient reason to activate article 15.1 of the Unfair Competition Law, which penalizes obtaining advantages in the market through regulatory non-compliance. The 5,281 million under analysis. During the procedure, the court notes, Meta Ireland did not provide its operating accounts in Spain, despite having been requested. Given this absence, the judge applied the rules of the burden of proof and validated the data presented by the plaintiff. Based on these elements, it estimated that, between May 25, 2018 and August 1, 2023, Meta would have earned more than 5,281 million euros with its advertising business in Spain. How compensation is calculated. To set the amount of compensation, the court used the Study on the conditions of competition in the online advertising sector in Spain prepared by the CNMC. Based on the market shares of the affected period, it was established that the income obtained by Meta through a practice contrary to the RGPD should be redistributed among competitors. The ruling considers it proven, with “reasonable plausibility,” that the digital press suffered lost profits. The ruling does not end the matter. The sentence itself admits of appeal and it will be the Provincial Court that will evaluate the arguments of both parties if the procedure continues. Until then, the case serves to place at the center the question of how privacy, commercial exploitation of data and competition should be related in the digital environment. The company has not yet expressed its position. We have requested your evaluation and are waiting to receive official comments. Images | Mark Zuckerberg | Dima Solomin In Xataka | Circular AI funding was not over: NVIDIA, Microsoft and Anthropic have signed a new billion-dollar deal

Justice has told them a couple of things

by

Convert a window into a door to have private access to the common patio, install the washing machine, place pots and a clothesline. This is how two owners acted of a building in Seville without having the authorization of the community of neighbors. The Provincial Court has confirmed that they must now reverse all the works and remove their belongings from the patio. Conflict. As you can read in the sentencethe lighthouse was a common space belonging to two buildings. One of them filed a lawsuit against these owners for opening a hole in the wall that faced the patio, allowing them to access directly from their home and use the area as if it were private, just as they explain from NewsWork. All of this without having requested or obtained the approval of the owners’ meeting. The defense. The reported neighbors alleged that there was discrimination, since another owner had maintained a similar door to the same patio for decades. They also argued that the neighbors at the time expressed indifference and that the lawsuit was motivated by poor personal relationships. However, none of these arguments succeeded. What the law says. The Provincial Court of Seville rejected the appeal and confirmed the First Instance ruling. Just like express From the middle, according to article 7.1 of the Horizontal Property Law, no owner can make alterations to common elements without express permission from the community. Opening a hole in the façade requires approval by board agreement, something that in this case was never requested. The problem of exclusive use. The court pointed out that he article 397 of the Civil Code establishes that no community member can use a common space in a way that excludes others or prevents their use. By installing a washing machine, pots, clothesline and other personal items, these owners were depriving the rest of the neighbors of shared use of the patio. Someone doing it is not enough. The fact that another neighbor has been granted that right does not automatically authorize the rest of the owners to do the same. The sentence discard the “comparative grievance” as a justification for repeating previous violations, especially when there is no community agreement to support it. In this way, the community would have acted within the legal framework. A recent use. The defendants were also unable to demonstrate that they had acquired rights through the passage of time. The acquisition of easements by prescription requires peaceful, public and continuous use for at least 20 years, according to the article 537 of the Civil Code. In this case, just as share the medium, the intervention was recent and without legitimation. Conviction. The two neighbors must close the door, replace the original window and remove all elements from the common patio: washing machine, flower pots, clothesline and any other object. In addition, they are obliged to repair the damage caused in the area and assume the full cost of the work to restore the previous state of the façade and the shared patio. Cover image | Javier Gomez In Xataka | The best horror movie of this winter has been released. And the protagonists are the owners of a home in Spain

In 2019, Iberia lost a dog before flying. Now the European Justice says that it is worth the same as a suitcase

by

After six years of trials, the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its verdict: a dog is a suitcase. The question that the European court had to resolve is whether the loss of a pet should entail greater compensation than that contemplated for a suitcase. And the response has been blunt. October 22, 2019. That was the day an Argentine family lost their dog Mona. That day, the family was at the Ezeiza airport, next to Buenos Aires, to travel to Barcelona. Given the company’s regulations, Mona had to travel in a carrier in the hold of the plane, but during the loading operation, the dog escaped from the control of the operators and, scared, ran towards the runway. They explained those days in The Vanguard that Grisel, its owner, was completely sure that she had closed the cage properly. However, once they were seated, a flight attendant approached to notify them of what had happened and confirm that the dog had escaped. The mother, who was accompanying Grisel, then claimed to have seen her dog running away and the workers trying to catch her but they were not allowed to get off the plane. Loss. After this first moment of anguish had passed, the family claimed that the Iberia workers confirmed that the dog had been trapped and that they had to give them a telephone number so that a contact could come get the animal at the airport. However, when Christian, the owner’s brother, went to the airport, they told him that the dog had escaped again and that they had not been able to catch her. Since then, the family did everything possible to investigate in the vicinity of the airport if the animal was nearby but with no luck. Iberia’s response. Then, the family was already indicating that they were unhappy with how Iberia had handled the situation. “We do not have any type of response from the airline. Iberia tells us that as happened in Argentina, nothing can be done from Spain,” they explained to the Catalan newspaper at the time. For its part, from Iberia in Argentina, the company assured Clarion that they were very sorry for what happened and that both Iberia and the airport manager kept the search active. According to her version, the animal “broke one of the sides of the cage and escaped. Before shipping any cage with an animal inside, we always seal the opening doors to prevent the animal from opening it and escaping. However, Mona broke the opposite side of the cage and that’s why she got out.” They confirm that the workers managed to recover Mona but she bit the worker’s arms and face, fleeing again. “Non-material damage”. Given the animal was lost, the family decided to report Iberia to claim compensation for what happened. Given the seriousness of the matter, the family requested that the company pay 5,000 euros for “non-material damages”, which Iberia refused, they explain in Guardian. They explain in the English newspaper that Iberia agreed to compensate for the loss of the animal since it had escaped under the responsibility of its workers. However, they were not willing to pay more than would be paid for the loss of any luggage. That is, they would pay but the same amount that they would pay for the loss of a suitcase. Europe agrees… with Iberia. During a process that has lasted six years, since the Madrid game they escalated the debate in 2024 to the Court of Justice of the European Union who, finally, ruled in favor of Iberia. The company will compensate the family as if they had lost a suitcase. That is to say, just under 1,600 euros which is the maximum amount contemplated for these cases. When the issue was brought to the European court, Iberia defended itself, arguing that “It makes no sense to equate animals with people. The owner, the only one who fully understands the animal, is the one who chooses to expose it to the often stressful and challenging experience of traveling by plane.” And he stressed that “it is his responsibility to prepare it for the trip, assume the risk of exposing it to an inhospitable environment and guarantee its veterinary aptitude. But the most important thing is that only he can assess the deep emotional bond with his pet and, therefore, the moral damage he would suffer if something happened to him during transport.” How is a pet valued? According to the Court of Justice of the European Unionvery simply: a special declaration of the value of the pet. This is what, in the opinion of the European court, the family should have signed and the company accepted. When this agreement is reached, the company agrees to pay a higher compensation if something happens but the passenger also pays a surcharge for the transportation of the animal. This is, in the opinion of Carlos Villa Corta, the family’s lawyer, a “missed opportunity to continue raising awareness about the rights of animals and the people who care for them. The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that pets do not deserve special or improved legal protection compared to a simple suitcase,” in words reported by Guardian. What the European court alleges is that the Montreal Convention that regulates these cases speaks of “people and luggage” and that, therefore, the term people would cover the damages to the “passenger” and that everything else must be considered as luggage. And they emphasize: “the fact that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognized by the European Union does not prevent animals from being transported as ‘baggage’ and being considered as such for the purposes of liability resulting from the loss of an animal.” Photo | TA-WEI LIN and Miguel Angel Sanz In Xataka | What the law says about breaking a car window when a dog is suffering from heat stroke

Justice has annulled it

by

A medical visitor from Galicia, with productivity awards and a salary of almost 5,000 euros per month, was fired after his company’s decision to put a Private detective to control you. He accused him of working just 90 minutes a day when he said he did much more. But justice has made a decision that radically contradicts the criteria followed by the company. The detective stopwatch that has not served at all. This story starts in the spring of 2024, as collects the judicial sentence. The medical visitor who worked for a pharmaceutical company had the task of visits to doctors to sell their new treatments. But after a decline, the company decided to hire a private detective to monitor its movements. The commercial was controlled by all fronts. Both his company car and the tablet he used could register their movements within the working day. But the detective in this case detected important irregularities between what the commercial reported and what really did in its day to day. A demolishing report for the worker. After monitoring from different locations in Galicia, it was seen that the worker said he worked more than he really did. For example, in Vigo the employee reported four hours of work where he visited 12 doctors. The detective timed only an hour and a half of activity in the hospital. The same happened in Ourense, where he spent 45 minutes in a cafeteria, although he points out that he visited four doctors. In the case of Pontevedra and Ferrol, these same patterns were repeated as there were stay times in hospitals much lower than the day and visits that the commercial recorded on its agenda. With this report in the hand, the company concluded that there was an abuse of flagrant trust, since of the 51 visits he said he made, the company, based on surveillance, attributed “five to the most” and proceeded to fire him. Productivity weighs more than GPS. This case reached the high courts and that was where the company’s argument collapsed. The worker’s defense focused not on the hours he physically passed in a hospital, but on the nature of his position and the demonstrated performance. For the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia It is very striking for the company to reward the worker up to 4,000 euros for having great productivity and be an “exemplary worker.” In this way, for judges efficiency is not laziness, since they point out that it is fully compatible to make “visits together”, something that a detective cannot interpret correctly. A pulse between two work models. The TSXG ruling confirms the inadmissibility of the dismissal and forces the company to choose between the worker’s readmission or the payment of compensation that exceeds 118,000 euros. Beyond the particular case, this sentence opens the current debate on the measurement of work. It shows that, at least in judicial field, the idea that monitor connection hours o Physical presence is an obsolete method to evaluate roles based on autonomy and objectives. There are many techniques to avoid time control. This is not an isolated case in the offices, as with Teams where The connection status can be controlled to see who is workingwhich also makes Companies appear to monitor workers who telework. Even in the offices it has been seen as the gene generation makes ‘task masking’ that is literally pretend that you work. Everything so that they do not receive more tasks they already have. And all because evaluating the goals for hours cannot be the most appropriate. It is not an isolated case. There are many companies that follow this same strategy, especially for combat possible false casualties That there are in your template. And it is completely legal, since according to the Private Security Lawdetectives can act in the face of suspicion of fraud in work decline. Images | Hunters Race In Xataka | This worker promised them happy combining three jobs, until he made an error and in a matter of hours was unemployed

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.