Void administrative acts in Spain: the grounds of article 47, deadlines and how to challenge them (2026 guide)

Published on 9 September 2026 · Bufete Padilla · Administrative Law · Torrevieja, Elche and Moraira

Some administrative decisions are simply unlawful. Others are radically void. The difference is not academic: it decides whether you have one month to react or whether you can still attack the decision years later, when you thought the case was long lost. That second category is what Spanish law calls nulidad de pleno derecho (full nullity, or absolute voidness), the most serious grade of invalidity our administrative law recognises.

> 30-second summary. Full nullity is an exhaustive list set out in article 47 of Law 39/2015 on Common Administrative Procedure. Its effects are devastating for the Administration: the act is invalid from the outset (*ex tunc*), it cannot be validated, it is not cured by the passage of time, and the action to have it declared void is in principle not subject to any time limit through the ex officio review procedure of article 106. By contrast, voidability under article 48 is the general rule: it can be cured, validated and it dies with the appeal deadlines (one month administratively, two months before the courts). In practice everything depends on fitting the defect into one of the grounds of article 47 and choosing the right route: ordinary appeal, ex officio review, extraordinary review appeal or judicial review.

1. Full nullity versus voidability: why the distinction changes everything

Spanish administrative law starts from a premise that is uncomfortable for the citizen: article 39.1 of Law 39/2015 states that administrative acts are presumed valid and take effect from the date they are issued. This is *autotutela declarativa*: the Administration decides, and its decision binds until somebody manages to strike it down.

Two grades of invalidity are built on that presumption:

| | Full nullity (art. 47) | Voidability (art. 48) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Exceptional and exhaustively listed | The general rule of invalidity |
| Defect | Maximum gravity: affects public order | Ordinary breach of the law |
| Effects | *Ex tunc*: as if the act had never existed | *Ex nunc*: from annulment onwards |
| Validation | Impossible | Possible (art. 52) |
| Cured by time | No | Yes: it becomes final if not appealed |
| Deadline to react | No time limit via art. 106 | One month / two months |
| Who can raise it | Also the Administration of its own motion | The interested party |
| Scope | May affect third parties and later acts | Limited to the challenged act |

The practical consequence is enormous. A client who receives a penalty and lets the one-month appeal period lapse holds, in principle, a final and consented act. If the defect is mere voidability, that act is untouchable. If the defect amounts to full nullity, it can still be attacked through ex officio review, even several years later.

2. The grounds in article 47.1: a closed list and how it is read

Article 47.1 lists seven grounds of nullity for individual acts, plus a catch-all clause. The courts read them restrictively: nullity is the exception, and whoever invokes it must show the defect fits with surgical precision.

a) Acts infringing rights and freedoms protected by constitutional amparo

Only the rights in articles 14 to 29 and 30.2 of the Spanish Constitution: equality, effective judicial protection, liberty, privacy, assembly, strike, and the whole set of guarantees of article 24 projected onto penalty proceedings (presumption of innocence, right of defence, right to be informed of the charge). Invoking article 33 (property) or article 47 (housing) is not enough: they are not amparo rights.