Bill 1/2025 (MASC): Why Registered Email is the Ideal Channel for Proving Mediation

Bill 1/2025 has marked a before and after in our judicial system by introducing the mandatory requirement to prove an attempt at mediation or ADR (Adequate Dispute Resolution) before filing a lawsuit. This measure, designed to reduce litigation, has generated no shortage of doubts, including: what means of communication is considered valid to meet this requirement?

In this article, we explain why eEvidence’s registered email is a robust and legally solid and effective tool for proving the certainty of communications related to prior mediation, thanks to its total alignment with current regulations, jurisprudence, and doctrine.

Legal clarity: beyond the qualified service

Bill 1/2025 does not require a “qualified service” to prove prior mediation communications, but rather it is sufficient to guarantee reliable proof. What is relevant is being able to demonstrate that the dialogue attempt was real and that it is documented, even if only at the attempt level.

It is very relevant to consider the unification criteria for action by the Lawyers of the Justice Administration of Barcelona regarding LO 1/2025 (March 2025 Forum), where it is noted that what is required is documentary proof of the date, receipt and access to the content of the communication —accepting means such as burofax, registered mail, email with proof of receipt and content, or notarial act— without in any case imposing the use of a “qualified provider.”

In this context, Regulation (EU) 910/2014, known as eIDAS, is key:

• Article 3.36 defines registered electronic delivery services (for example, eEvidence’s registered email service) as:

«a service that makes it possible to transmit data between third parties by electronic means and provides evidence relating to the handling of the transmitted data, including proof of sending and receiving the data, and that protects transmitted data against the risk of loss, theft, damage or any unauthorised alterations.»

• Article 43.1 adds that

«Data sent and received using an electronic registered delivery service shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements of the qualified electronic registered delivery service.»

This means that the European legislator has wanted to favor the validity of registered electronic communications, as long as they allow proving the three fundamental pillars: origin, content and delivery, without therefore requiring in any way the addition of being the so-called “qualified services under the eIDAS Regulation.”

The key: proving origin, content and delivery

An eEvidence registered email is much more than a simple email. It offers solid and reliable proof of each communication, proving the fundamental pillars to comply with the law:

• Proof of origin: We verify that the sender is the owner of the email address and that the origin and content of the email are legitimate.
• Proof of content: The eEvid receipt includes a complete copy of the message and its attachments, ensuring that no one can question what was actually transmitted.
• Proof of transmission and, where applicable, delivery: We record the entire sending process under Internet standards, leaving technical evidence of the communication and its acceptance, or non-acceptance, at destination.

All these elements are collected in the eEvid receipt, an electronically signed PDF document with a qualified timestamp, which acts as immutable and verifiable evidence in court.

Jurisprudence supports validity

The use of a registered email service to prove mediation has already been endorsed by Spanish courts. The Judgment of the Provincial Court of Madrid (SAP 18026/2024, of December 23, 2024), expressly recognized that this type of communications meets the requirement of proving prior mediation.

Other rulings in line with this interpretation:

• SAP Pontevedra 131/2024 and SAP Zaragoza 1107/2025, which support the probative value of registered email as a reliable means of communication.
• The Order of the Provincial Court of Alicante, Section 8ª (07/18/2025), which validates electronic communications under Bill 1/2025 under the pro actione principle.

Doctrine: Confilegal and the pro actione principle

In his analysis in Confilegal, jurist Jesús M. Sánchez maintains that Bill 1/2025 must be interpreted in accordance with the pro actione principle, which requires facilitating access to justice by avoiding unnecessary formal obstacles.

The key, according to his opinion, is that the means used prove:

• Who sends the communication.
• What content is transmitted.
• Which recipient it is directed to.
• And when it is delivered.

eEvidence’s registered email service precisely meets these requirements.

FAQs

Does Bill 1/2025 require using a qualified service to prove mediation? No. The rule does not establish that requirement. It is sufficient that the means used allows proving origin, content and delivery of the communication in a reliable manner.

Does eEvidence’s registered email service guarantee that the recipient has read the message? What the rule requires is not to prove reading, but the correct transmission and delivery of the communication. eEvidence certifies that the message has been made available to the recipient on their mail server, complying with the legal requirement provided for in Bill 1/2025 on procedural efficiency measures and adequate dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR). In no case does the Bill requires proving the reading of the content, a legally impossible requirement, just as it is not required when sending a burofax.

Can a judge reject an eEvid for not being on the TSL list? No. The eIDAS Regulation (art. 43.1) establishes that probative effectiveness cannot be denied for the fact of not being qualified. What is relevant is the ability to prove sending, content and delivery.

What does an eEvid provide as evidence compared to other electronic means? It provides an electronically signed receipt that contains the complete content of the email and attachments, qualified timestamp and technical evidence of sending and delivery.

Conclusion

Bill 1/2025 establishes mediation (or an attempt at mediation) as a prerequisite to the judicial process. To comply with it, professionals need a means of communication that guarantees traceability, integrity and probative effectiveness.

eEvidence’s registered email service brings together all these elements: it proves origin, content, transmission and delivery; it is protected by the eIDAS Regulation; and it has already been recognized in jurisprudence and doctrine as a valid means.

In short, using eEvidence is a solid, efficient and legally supported way to prove the prior mediation required by Bill 1/2025.