New Judicial Victory for Registered Email: Logroño Provincial Court Validates eEvidence to Comply with MASC Law

A New Procedural Scenario After MASC Law

The entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025, on measures regarding the efficiency of the Public Justice Service (MASC Law) has introduced a relevant change in procedural practice: before going to court, parties must certify a real attempt at out-of-court resolution of the conflict.

Although the rule is clear regarding the requirement, during its first months of application, practical doubts have arisen among legal professionals. One of the most common is whether a registered email is sufficient to meet the admissibility requirement or if, on the contrary, it is still necessary to resort to traditional means such as burofax.

The recent Order 219/2025 of the Logroño Provincial Court provides a clear and technically grounded answer to this question, with a direct impact on daily forensic practice.

The Case: Initial Inadmissibility Due to Alleged Lack of Guarantees

The proceeding originates from a verbal trial claim filed by a consumer against a banking entity, requesting the nullity of a mortgage clause as abusive.

To comply with the prior requirement imposed by MASC Law, the claimant provided an eEvidence certificate that certified the sending, content, and delivery of an out-of-court claim made by registered email.

However, the Court of First Instance No. 3 of Logroño dismissed the claim. In its resolution, it held that email did not offer sufficient guarantees, as it did not certify —according to its criterion— the specific identity of the recipient nor the effective receipt of the message.

This interpretation, clearly restrictive in nature, was subject to an appeal.

The Provincial Court’s Ruling

The Logroño Provincial Court (Section 1) upheld the appeal and revoked the inadmissibility order, ordering the admission of the claim.

The court expressly analyzes the certificate provided and concludes that eEvidence registered email adequately certifies the prior claim required by MASC Law, basing its decision on several key elements:

1. Certification of Content, Sending, and Receipt
   The Court confirms that the certificate incorporates sufficient proof of the email dispatch, its complete content, and its receipt at the recipient’s server, which satisfies the legal requirements of the out-of-court claim.

2. Compliance with Article 439 LEC
   The Order considers the requirements provided in articles 439 bis and 439.5 of the Civil Procedure Law, applicable to consumer disputes, fulfilled, without the rule requiring a specific means nor a determined form beyond certifying the attempt at claim.

3. Absence of Response Obligation
   The court recalls that MASC Law does not impose obtaining a response from the claimed party. It is enough to certify the attempt at out-of-court resolution and the absence of response within the legal period.

Practical Relevance for the Legal Profession

This Order has a value that transcends the specific case. It represents a new explicit endorsement of the probative validity of registered email in the new procedural framework and provides legal security at a time of regulatory adaptation.

From a professional perspective, the resolution consolidates several relevant conclusions:

• Judicial Recognition of Electronic Evidence
  The eEvidence certificate is treated as a valid probative means, in line with article 43.1 of eIDAS Regulation, which prohibits denying legal effects to evidence merely because it is electronic.

• Pro actione Interpretation of MASC Requirement
  The Court rejects excessively formalistic readings that hinder access to jurisdiction when there is objective proof of the claim attempt.

• Economic and Operational Efficiency
  By validating registered email as an alternative to burofax, the door opens to comply with MASC Law in a more agile, scalable, and economically proportionate way, without diminishing guarantees.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Does MASC Law require the use of a specific means for the prior claim?
No. MASC Law requires certifying the attempt at out-of-court resolution, but does not impose a specific means such as burofax. It does explicitly exclude other means, such as WhatsApp messages.

Is it sufficient to certify sending if the recipient does not respond?
Yes. The Logroño Provincial Court recalls that a response is not necessary, only proof of the claim attempt within the period.

Can this criterion be extended to other courts?
Although each judicial body is independent, the Order reinforces an interpretative line coherent with eIDAS and the pro actione principle, with high capacity for influence.

Conclusion

Order 219/2025 of the Logroño Provincial Court constitutes a relevant milestone in the practical application of MASC Law. It confirms that registered email is a suitable means to certify the prior out-of-court claim and clears doubts about its sufficiency compared to more expensive traditional solutions.

For law firms and legal professionals, this resolution provides a clear message: it is possible to comply with new procedural requirements combining legal security, efficiency, and technology, with the express support of the courts.

Full text of the resolution: Order 2019/2025 of the Logroño Provincial Court, Section 1, of October 16, 2025 (Roj: AAP LO 587/2025)