Supreme Archives - usatoday24

The Supreme Court ended up seeing the obvious

March 13, 2026 by usatoday24

The last straw for a worker is to have been doing the same job for more than 16 years in the same place and with the same colleagues, and to be fired for not having passed the trial period. It seems like a joke, but it is exactly what happened to the employee of a notary office in Madrid. What came next was a judicial battle that reached the Supreme Court, and ended up agreeing. Although taken to the extreme, this case is no exception. In Spain, companies terminated more than a million contracts in 2025 alleging that the worker had not passed the trial period, and the data suggests that behind many of these dismissals there is something else than employees who did not perform enough. Sixteen years in the same place. Just like is detailed in the sentence of the Supreme Court, The worker had been working in the same notary office since May 2004, chaining contracts with different notaries who occupied the position throughout that period. In September 2019, the titular notary was assigned to another location and was offered the choice between going with him to Jávea and keeping his contract in force, or collect your compensation for the cessation of its activity. The employee opted for compensation of 10,071.20 euros. A few months later, the new notary contacted him to enlist his services and that of his former colleagues at the same notary office. In February 2020, he signed a permanent contract with this new notary with a trial period of six months. It should be noted that the new notary was employing the majority of the previous staff, he continued in the same office, with the same furniture, computers and software as all his predecessors. The pandemic and layoff. With the state of alarm due to COVID-19 newly declared, the worker and two colleagues went to the notary’s office to remind the notary that he must apply the health measures dictated by the authorities: shifts, gel, masks and limiting activity to urgent matters. The notary’s response, recorded literally in the sentence, was that “this is not a cooperative.” That same afternoon, the three received their dismissal letters for not having passed the six-month trial period contemplated in their indefinite contract. The case took five years to resolve. In December 2023, a first court ruled in favor of the worker: if the new notary had assumed the staff and resources of the previous one, there was a transfer of the company and the agreed trial period was void. There is no point in testing the ability of someone who has been in the same position for 16 years. Finally, and after several appeals before different instances, in January 2026 the Supreme Court confirmed its verdict: the trial period was not valid and sentenced the notary to reinstatement of the employee or compensation of 54,294.42 euros. One million layoffs a year. This case is striking because of the extreme and obvious nature of the situation, but it is nothing more than an example of an upward trend among companies to avoid compensation for unfair dismissal. According to report data ‘Balance of the labor market in 2025‘ Prepared by the USO union with sources from the SEPE, INE and Social Security, Spanish companies terminated 1.02 million contracts alleging that the worker had not passed the trial period. This represents an increase of 2.34% compared to 2024 and 79% more than in 2021, before the last labor reform in which permanent contracts were reinforced compared to temporary contracts. What it does especially that data is relevant The thing is that it is not a general increase: it is mainly the indefinite contracts that are behind this growth. Before the labor reform, in 2021, only 13% of all dismissals for not passing the trial period corresponded to permanent contracts. In 2025, that percentage had already risen to 75% of layoffs. To put this figure in a context, dismissals of permanent workers grew by 137% in the same period, while dismissals of permanent workers in a trial period grew by 864%, to exceed 720,000 cases. “At USO we have always said that it was more than suspicious data. Suddenly, there are many people who are not worth the job for which they are hired. It is clear that the trial period is an escape route to hire people temporarily and not even have to compensate them. But it has been seen that, even so, not only is its use abused, but it is twisted and used illegally,” warns Joaquín Pérez, general secretary of USO. The gap left by the storms. To understand the reason behind this sudden use of the trial period to argue for dismissal, we must take into account a detail in the regulations that governs severance pay: When an employee does not pass the trial period, the company does not have to pay him any compensation or justify his termination of the contract. On the other hand, for a dismissal, it must be justified and, depending on the case, compensation must be paid. Firing with the excuse of not having passed the trial period is even more profitable for the company than letting it expire. a temporary contractsince in this case a compensation of 12 days per year worked is applied. Therein lies the trap that the unions They have been denouncing for some time. With the latest labor reform, companies can no longer chain temporary contracts so easily and are forced to hire indefinitely in many more situations. Terminating an indefinite contract during its trial period is cheaper than any other form of dismissal, and hardly requires any paperwork. As and as they pointed from The Economistthis fraud of law would be producing a precariousness of permanent jobs. The Ministry of Labor launched inspection campaigns in 2024 and 2025, but in January 2026, layoffs for this reason continued to grow by 1.3% compared to the same month of the previous year. In Xataka | Companies … Read more

In 2017, the owner of an electric car installed a charger with his neighborhood community against him. The Supreme Court has spoken

December 16, 2025 by usatoday24

A neighborhood association does not have the right to prevent a neighbor from installing a charger in their garage. This is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, confirming what can already be read in the Horizontal Property Law where this assumption is included. This has been the case of a neighbor from Alicante. 2017. The entire case studied by the Supreme Court has its origins in the last months of 2017. As stated in the rulingat the beginning of September of that year, the owner of an electric car contacts the administrator of his neighborhood community to inform him that he is going to install an electric car charger in his garage. There begins an exchange of communications in which the property manager maintains that he cannot carry out said installation because he is occupying common areas with the cables pulled for it and asks him to wait for the ordinary meeting to ask the neighbors if they agree with said installation since he can only carry it out if all the neighbors give their approval. Why does an electric car have less autonomy than advertised? without permission. It is then that the owner of the electric car tells the administration of the garage’s community of neighbors and its president that he does not need the approval of the neighbors since it is only necessary to inform the community of owners of his intentions. To do this, remember that in the article 17.5 of the Horizontal Property Law the following is specified: The installation of an electric vehicle charging point for private use in the building’s parking lot, provided that it is located in an individual parking space, will only require prior communication to the community. The cost of said installation and the corresponding electricity consumption will be assumed entirely by the person or parties directly interested in it. Therefore, he points out, the installation will be carried out whether the neighborhood community wants it or not. He emphasizes that he will pay the costs in full and that the electricity will be supplied with the service of his home. The complaint. Once the charging point was installed in December 2017, the ordinary meeting of the neighborhood community decided in February 2018 that the installation is illegal because it is occupying common areas and that for this the owner must receive the approval of the neighbors. They point out that if the installation is not eliminated within two months they will use the appropriate legal measures. Given this decision, the owner of the electric car denounces the community of neighbors so that the agreement in which the installation of his charging point was discussed is annulled. The defendant neighborhood association requests that it be dismissed and the court of first instance agrees with it, dismissing the lawsuit and ruling that the owner of the electric car has to pay the costs of the trial. From there, the matter escalates to the Supreme Court. First, the owner appeals the decision and the court of second instance agrees with him, admitting the complaint to be processed and declaring the agreement of the ordinary meeting null and void despite the fact that the community of owners filed an appeal that was dismissed. Then, the community of neighbors files an appeal against the decision of the court of second instance. The Supreme Court. With all this background, the Supreme Court concludes that the owner has the right to install a charging point in his parking space despite the fact that he has to occupy common areas with perforations and passage of cables, as detailed by the community of neighbors. In its ruling, the highest judicial body rejects the appeal of the community of owners. They remember that although in article 17 of the Horizontal Property Law there are several points that require the unanimity of the owners to occupy common areas for private purposes, this is not the case in the case of the fifth point in which the installation of charging points is regulated. Additionally, they explain the following: (The installation) requires an electrical supply, which can only be obtained through the appropriate conduction, it is obvious that it must necessarily flow through such elements. In other words, the legislator had to necessarily imagine that the wiring would pass through common elements. If, however, it introduced this rule without referring to said circumstance or the agreement of the Community, it is because it considered that this particular action was excluded or outside the decision-making powers of the Community, which could not oppose the practice of installation Communicate but do not ask permission. As confirmed by experts in horizontal property to Xatakaany resident of a community garage can install a charging point for their electric car even if the neighborhood community objects. Legally, it is only necessary to communicate the intention to do so and comply with the Technical Guide of application of the ITC-BT 52. Special purpose facilities. Infrastructure for recharging electric cars. When the Madrid College of Administrators was consulted, its advisors recommended complying with the following requirements to avoid problems: Prior communication by the requesting owner or neighbor. From the meter to the charging point, the line must be installed under approved pipe and along the route agreed upon with the community of owners, and common conduits and boxes cannot be used. The pipe pass from the meter room to the garage will be the responsibility of the requesting owner. The charging point will be installed on the back wall of the parking space, as centrally as possible and without occupying the flight of the adjacent spaces. The owner or neighbor must deliver the installation bulletin to the community of owners. Comply with current regulations at all times. An exception. It occurs in Catalonia and its objective is to facilitate the installation of more than one charging point for electric cars by taking advantage of the implementation of the first plug or, at least, trying to ensure that it … Read more

Some employees sued their company for cutting the salary. The supreme has responded that being unpunctual is not a job

July 2, 2025 by usatoday24

The working day is much more than a simple time convention. From the labor reform of 2021, in which the SCHEDULE HOURS REGISTRATION As a method to measure Time really workedhas become a factor that conditions the salary that the employee must receive. Both when working More hours of the agreedlike when it doesn’t meet them. That is precisely what the Supreme Court had to remind them of the collective claim of a group of workers filed against their employer. If you do not meet your schedule and you are late, You will charge less. What happened? As you can read in The Supreme Court Judgmenta group of workers, represented by their union links, said that, due to the distance between the system of day registration And the employee’s job, every day they were counted between one and three minutes of delay, which was added monthly. The employees complained that, when doing the payrolls, the company discounted that time not worked on their salary, so they received less than agreed. What do employees claim? Workers recognize that Importuality It is a reason for sanction contemplated in the collective agreement of the company, but does not apply to salary reduction for that reason. Instead, it should be done through other types of warnings or compensation since the agreement is governed by a certain amount of annual hours, not for daily days. In this way, the company could ask employees to compensate for that time at any other time of the year, avoiding salary cut. Employees consider that, delays the delays of their salary, they would be imposing a double sanction and incurring a type of sanction called “Fine of having“, in which salary amounts are subtracted or sanctions on vacations or holidays are applied. A practice prohibited by article 58.3 of the Workers Statute. What does the Supreme Court say? The sentence of the High Court bases its argument to give the reason to the company in article 26.1 of the Statute of the Workers in which it is specified: “The totality of the economic perceptions of the workers, in money or in kind, for the professional benefit of the labor services in an alienation, and the effective work, whatever the form of remuneration, or the computable rest periods as a computable rest periods,” will be considered salary. The supreme considers that salary Back the work Cash or the computable rest time as work, while in article 30 of the Workers’ Statute it is established that “the worker will keep the right to his salary if he does not provide services for cause to the employer and not the worker.” Therefore, “during the time when the worker does not provide labor services, having an obligation to do so, without any justification, the sinalagmatic character of the employment contract assumes that salary is not accrued, without this implying a fine of having.” That is, since the unpunctuality was not produced for any reason attributable to the company, and the time of delay is not considered effective working timethe company is in its right not to pay it, without being considered as a sanction. Not that they don’t pay you, they can fire you. The Supreme Court specifies that the “fine of having” applies when it occurs in a salary cut or benefits to which the worker is entitled. However, in this case, “the worker has no right to receive said salary because he has not provided services for causes only to him,” the sentence abounds. In other words: the company does not have to pay for a job that the employee has not done and, therefore, cannot apply any penalty about something that does not correspond to it. In addition, the Supreme Court rules out the assumption of the double sanction since it has been shown that it is something that employees have no right because they have not provided the service that justifies it, although it indicates that “a contractual breach that, if reiterated, justifies the exercise of disciplinary power by the employer.” That is, that the company is not obliged to pay for the time that has not been worked, but can impose disciplinary measures on employees (and even cause with dismissal) by repeated breach of your contract without just cause. In Xataka | It seemed obvious, but the Supreme has had to remember: Ryanair cannot choose union, employees choose Image | Flickr (Kris Arnold), Unspash (MUSEMIND UX AGENCY)

Argentina has sought in the basement of the Supreme Court and something very Argentine has been found: Nazi material

May 14, 2025 by usatoday24

Argentina has maintained a somewhat complex relationship with the legacy of Nazism. During World War II, the country adopted a Neutrality position that allowed him to maintain “mixed” diplomatic ties, although he also took measures to stop the Nazi propaganda in his territory. However, after the conflict, the nation He became a refuge of numerous leaders and collaborators of the Nazi regime that fled from Europe, many With false documentation and under the protection of clandestine networks. Today, more than half a century later, someone has found another thread with Nazism … in the catacombs of the Supreme Court. An accidental finding. In the basement of the Supreme Court of Argentina, while organizations were carried out for the creation of an institutional museum, the operators randomly with something strange, several forgotten boxes for more than eighty years. The content, however, turned out to be an unexpected historical weight: notebooks stamped with Spastics, Nazi propaganda and other documents of the third Reich destined to disseminate the ideology of Adolf Hitler in Argentina in full boom of World War II. The finding, confirmed by the Supreme Court itself In a statementhighlighted the potential relevance of the materials to clarify episodes linked to the holocaust. In a recent ceremony, researchers, officials and representatives of the Argentine Jewish community formally opened part of the content, which includes thousands of red notebooks with Nazi symbols and registers of names and addresses that could correspond to members of the National Socialist Party outside Germany. The shipment that did not achieve its mission. Apparently, preliminary investigation allowed to track the origin of the boxes until the German embassy in Tokyospace from which it was sent to Buenos Aires on the Japanese ship Nan-A-Maru on June 20, 1941, when Argentina maintained a neutrality posture formal in the global conflict. The cargo was declared as personal effects by German diplomats in order to overcome customs controls. However, the Argentine authorities They detected their content And, concerned about the political implications of admitting Nazi propaganda, they sent the matter to the then Foreign Minister Enrique Ruiz Guiñazú. In August of that same year, Argentine officials opened some of the boxes and confirmed their propaganda character. Despite the German request that they were returned, a federal judge ordered his seizure and the transfer of the file to the Supreme Court, a space where the materials were archived and forgotten for decades. Argentine context in Nazism. We already said it at the beginning. Although the subsequent history made Argentina one of the more noticeable shelters Nazis and war criminals after the fall of the third Reich, the discovery of these boxes sheds new light on the efforts (previous and during the country’s conflict) to curb the ideological and organizational infiltration of national socialism. Already in 1939, the Argentine Attorney General had declared illegal and unconstitutional The activities of the local Nazi party, pointing them as an affront to national sovereignty. Likewise, it was forbidden that members of the German Nazi party access Argentine citizenship, showing an early will to cut any formal roots channel of the roots of the Hitlerism In the country. A time capsule. He counted In the New York Times Jonathan Karszenbaum, director of the Holocaust Museum of Buenos Aires, that the volume of the documents found is overwhelming. Although the entire content has not yet been examined, the thorough analysis of the notebooks is expected to provide concrete clues about The network of supporters and Nazi operators in Latin America during the war. The most disturbing question, however, is how and why This material remained hidden for more than eighty years in the heart of the Argentine Judiciary, a key institution of the Republic. The rediscovery, with all its symbolism, raises a unique opportunity to clarify dark chapters of the country’s history and reaffirm an institutional commitment to truth, memory and justice. Image | Supreme Court of Argentina In Xataka | The crazy theory that states that Hitler escaped Argentina via Galicia: from a plane in Lugo to a submarine in Vigo In Xataka | Pederastia, bratwurst and jacuzzis: so it was and so is today the secret exile of the Nazis in Latin America

The Supreme Court has just resolved who is responsible when you steal all your money for Phishing: the bank

May 7, 2025 by usatoday24

The Supreme Court has just failed in favor of users and against banking in one of the most recurrent issues in recent years: Scams through the Internet. He declares that banking is the main responsible in these cases of fraud, being forced to immediately replenish all money stolen from the client. It is not a user thing. The Supreme Court has confirmed A sentence issued on April 9in which the Civil Chamber rejected the appeal filed by Ibercaja against a resolution issued by the Provincial Court of Zaragoza in November 2022. In this sentence 571/2025 it is underlined that good banking practices require the activation of systems capable of detecting suspicious activities, as well as blocking or verifying high -risk operations. Almost 60,000 euros, back to pocket. Unless it can be demonstrated that the client acted negligently, the bank is obliged to assume responsibility and return the money immediately. In this case, Ibercaja Banco SA must reintegrate a client 56,474.63 euros stolen from his account through Sim Swappinga system to supplant our identity stealing the telephone number. Judge Manuel Almenar Belenguer uses the European Directive before payment servicesas well as the Spanish regulations, concluding that if there is no negligence, the user’s only obligation is to notify the bank about any type of unauthorized operation. The new jurisprudence. This case feels a fundamental precedent since it establishes that, from now on, the banking entities will be the main responsible in cases of Phishing banking. Consequently, they must respond for user -unauthorized operations, thus marking a significant change in customer protection against electronic fraud. “The advances of current technology make relatively easy to design ideal computer systems or applications to detect certain anomalies in the provision of payment services. Operations that, in the case of companies or companies with a concrete corporate purpose, can be described as ordinary, must immediately raise suspicions and give rise to an answer when they affect natural persons outside of such activity.” Banks will no longer have an excuse. Based on Judisprudence, it is stated that contractual clauses that exempt the banking entities of their responsibility with users regarding unauthorized operations must be declared knots. Until now, banks could hide in alleged bad practices carried out by the user, such as having introduced their data on websites or malicious links. After this sentence, they are responsible for any unauthorized operation. A plague with which the government tries to end. Scams per call and SMS are a plague. So much, that the Ministry of Digital Transformation It has been trying to put a brake over a year. He End of commercial calls It arrived in February 2025 under ministerial order, but this is just a tiny part in the cybethaf cake. False calls, Scams by WhatsApp, malware in stores like Google Play, Identity Supplant by SMS… tactics change and evolve to continue having an affectation and result. Recently, The Civil Guard dismantled a network of cybers allegedly led by a 19 -year -old student. User’s responsibility. Despite the additional protection that the clients of the entities will enjoy in case of cybetafa, it falls on the roof of the user not to fall into practices that can end up being considered as negligence. These have not established themselves, but it is worth not introducing our phone, personal email on the websites whose origin we are not clear. In case of using Android, we are also responsible for what we download and where we download it, as well as the permits that we give to the applications. Protecting goes beyond possible money subtractions: it is especially easy to end up giving all our data to cybers. In Xataka | Cybethafa with Word documents as a Trojan horse: how it works and how to protect your personal and financial data

Galicia blocked 64 eólicos projects judicially. Now the Supreme Court has returned them to life

April 3, 2025 by usatoday24

In these last 15 years, wind energy in Galicia He has faced multitude of legal problems due to great social opposition. In fact, the Superior Court of Xustia de Galicia (TSXG) has suspended in repeated different occasions wind projects for environmental risk complaints. Finally, these conflicts have reached the Supreme Court, sitting a precedent in Spain. The sentence. The Supreme Court He has validated The environmental processing of the Xunta de Galicia, reactivating the 64 judicially blocked projects. The sentence has also reinforced the legality of administrative agreements, such as the Campelo wind farm in A Coruña. Also, how The confidential has had accessthe TS has rejected the idea that several wind farms that share infrastructure should be considered as a single project, thus simplifying the environmental evaluation. The origin. The conflict began by The expansion of wind farms that exceeded 200 meters high. According to the countryneighborhood and environmental groups argued that some of these parks were in sensitive areas and did not meet environmental guarantees. All this leads to the judicial situation to be further complicated by the lack of a final resolution, with more than 130 pending lawsuits until the end of 2024. A precedent. According to El Confidencial, The Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia had asked to wait for the Court of Justice of the European Union (TJUE) to rule on an issue raised by the Ecological Association Adega. However, the Supreme Court rejected it. In addition, the Xunta de Galicia has clarified that the TSXG is the only one in Spain that has questioned the compatibility of the Law 21/2013 With European regulations. This issue could affect not only projects in Galicia, but also those of other autonomous communities that need an environmental evaluation. The Minister of Economy of Galicia, María Jesús Lorenzana, celebrated that the Supreme Court has validated processing Of wind projects, highlighting that the more wind energy occurs, cheaper could be the price of electricity. The impact. All this conflict is not an isolated case, but reflects a broader problem related to energy inequality in Spain. The precedent that the TS feels has guaranteed the continuity of wind projects in the community, but the opposition will continue to exist. Therefore, to move towards a sustainable energy transition, it will be necessary to balance the interests of the economy, the environment and local communities. Image | Pexels Xataka | Now we can see the rise of renewable energy in the world: we just needed the satellite images

Supreme Court upholds law that bans TikTok in the US unless it changes ownership. How will it be applied?

January 17, 2025 by usatoday24

Today, the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the federal law that bans the social network TikTok starting next Sunday, January 19, unless it is sold by its parent company based in China.. The measure maintains that the risk to national security raised by its ties to China outweighs concerns about limiting the freedom of expression of the application and its 170 million users in the United States. The decision came in the context of a unusual political upheaval by President-elect Donald Trump – who promised he could negotiate a solution – and the outgoing administration of Joe Biden, who has indicated that he will not apply the law starting Sunday, his last full day in office. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement saying that “TikTok should continue to be available to Americans,” but that national security issues should be addressed. “Given the mere fact that it is time, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law must simply fall to the next administration, which takes office on Monday,” he added. How does this affect current users? The bipartisan law requires that ByteDance, owner of TikTok based in China, will divest the company on Sunday, a day before Trump takes office. If no sales occur, the platform used by millions of Americans will theoretically be banned. A sale does not seem imminent And while experts have said the app won’t disappear from existing users’ phones once the law goes into effect on Jan. 19, new users won’t be able to download it and updates won’t be available. That will eventually render the app inoperative, said the Department of Justice In court documents, he highlighted Associated Press. In a rapidly changing situation, It is unclear what will happen on Sunday with TikTok in the United States, as there are signs that Trump could try to keep the app available. The Biden administration has also signaled that it will not take any enforcement action on Sunday. The Justice Department had raised two key issues in defending the ban: that the Chinese government could exercise control over content that users see to influence public opinion, and that could collect sensitive data over millions of American users. In today’s ruling, the court acknowledged that national security reasons affected its analysis of whether there was a violation of freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Constitutionand the judges focused on the issue of data collection. The high court concluded that the reasons for enacting the law are “decidedly content-agnostic” and have nothing to do with restricting certain speech. “TikTok’s scale and its susceptibility to control by foreign adversaries, coupled with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the government’s national security concerns,” the supreme ruling said. “The challenged provisions promote an important governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech and do not substantially burden free speech more than is necessary to promote that interest,” the court added. “The anti-TikTok sentiment that led Congress to pass the law, driven by concerns about the level of control the Chinese government has over the company, has quickly dissipated in some quarters,” he said. NBC News.

Log In

Sign In

Forgot password?

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections