Press Room

Our colleague Almudena Álvarez attended the Annual Labour and Immigration Law Conference of AIJA in sunny Helsinki last June. Together with her fellow panelists,​ Ints Skaldis (Ellex Legal), Yulia Fedorenko (CM Murray LLP), and Matthew Ennis (Hager & Ennis), and under the moderation of Archita Mohapatra (Trilegal), they explored the topic "Breaking the Silence: Tackling Sexual Harassment in Global Employment Structures", discussing the legal and practical challenges that arise when workplace sexual harassment cases involve multiple jurisdictions (educational performance included). Beyond the outstanding academic program, the amazing Organizing Committee put together a truly memorable social program, including a traditional Finnish sauna (with a refreshing plunge into the Baltic Sea!) and karaoke. Another highlight of the Seminar was the​ Home Hospitality at Iida Vuori's (co-hosted by Emilia Alakurtti and Jukka Blomberg - a true legend!), followed by drinks at Magnusson. We are already looking forward to the next inspiring conference!

The employee’s admission (occasional drug use after finishing their shift, but not during working hours), obtained during a two-hour meeting with company management (an imbalance of power between the parties), without any warning regarding their rights (legal counsel or the presence of employee representatives) or the potential disciplinary consequences, and with an inquisitorial purpose (?), constitutes a violation of the employee’s fundamental right to a defense and to protection against self-incrimination “in proceedings of a punitive nature” (Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution — although it does not state this in those exact terms…). As the employee’s admission was the only piece of evidence, the dismissal was declared null and void (rather than unfair, as in other cases). Appellate Court of Basque Country, Feb 24, 2026.

The Spanish Constitution (Article 18) provides that the domicile is inviolable (except with prior court order) and, as it does not make any further specification, it is understood that this protection also extends to the corporate domicile (companies). Therefore, when the registered office (of the company) coincides with the workplace (and there is no clear physical separation between the registered office/corporate domicile and the workplace), the Labour Inspectorate needs a prior court order to enter the workplace, since Article 13.1 of Law 23/2015 of 21 July cannot restrict constitutional rights (as it only provides for prior court order in the case of individual's homes). Supreme Court (Administrative Chamber), April 14, 2026