Two Salvadoran nationals, R. and R., applied for international protection in Spain. Their applications were rejected by the Ministry of the Interior on 20 February 2021. Following their appeal, the National High Court (Audiencia Nacional) confirmed the rejections on 11 April 2023. The applicants appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court, alleging procedural flaws in the handling of their asylum claims.

Their appeal focused on two internal reports prepared by the Asylum Office case workers during the first instance examination of their cases, which summarized their cases prior to referral to the Interministerial Commission for Asylum. They argued that these reports were invalid because they lacked the electronic signatures, metadata, and author identification required under Articles 26 and 80 of the Administrative Procedure Law. The applicants further contended that the absence of these elements violated transparency, prevented them from identifying the officials responsible for processing their cases, and breached EU requirements of procedural fairness and competent authority under the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Recital 16, Articles 4(1), 4(3), 10(3)).

In its reasoning, the Supreme Court confirmed that because the Asylum Act (Law 12/2009) does not contain specific rules on electronic administration, the Administrative Procedure Law applies subsidiarily. The Court recognized that the contested reports were indeed electronic administrative documents and should have complied with the requirements established in Article 26 of the Administrative Procedure Law (metadata, digital signature, traceability, author identification).

However, the Court drew a distinction between nullity and annullability of administrative acts. It held that the absence of formal elements in such reports does not amount to nullity under Article 47(1)(b) of the Administrative Procedure Law but may lead to annullability if it results in material harm or procedural indefensibility. In this case, the court reasoned that the contested reports were not explicitly required in the Asylum Act  and that their substantive content was included in the Ministry’s asylum decisions, which themselves met formal requirements and were not contested. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicants were not deprived of the opportunity to access or challenge the reasoning of the authorities. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that, while the reports did not meet the above requisites, this did not mean that they were null and void, as it did not have the consequence of preventing the applicants from accessing and challenging the content of the reports.

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the National High Court’s judgment rejecting the applicants’ claims.