In its ruling of April 24, 2025, the Supreme Court clarifies that, when the employee provides his services remotely from home, the “place of work” for procedural purposes is that addressTherefore, in the event of dismissal, the employee can choose between filing a lawsuit in the courts of his or her residence or in those of the company's headquarters, as permitted by Article 10 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (LRJS).
The unstoppable advance of the telecommuting This created a void regarding where to litigate a possible dismissal: in the courts of the workplace listed in the contract or in the courts of the employee's home, from where they actually logged in every day?
He Supreme Court has just settled the matter in the STS 307/2025, of April 24 (rec. 1780/2023), by dismissing the appeal of a Canarian university against the decision of a professor-researcher who sued from Madrid, the city where he was teleworking.
In the process analyzed, a professor-researcher from a university based in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria worked at 100 % remotely from his home in MadridAlthough the contract indicated the Canary Islands management as the workplace, the teacher filed a dismissal claim before the Social Courts of MadridThe university appealed, alleging territorial incompetence and expiration, maintaining that the dispute should be settled in Las Palmas. The Supreme Court, however, confirms that article 10.1 LRJS grants the worker a elective jurisdiction: You can sue in the place where you actually provide your services (your domicile) or in the company's jurisdiction, so the choice of Madrid was fully valid.
The Supreme Court's key arguments
- Elective territorial jurisdiction (art. 10.1 LRJS)
The law gives the plaintiff two options: courts in the place where services were provided or courts in the place where the defendant resides. "Place of provision" is not the address shown in the contract, but where the work is carried out in practice. - Teleworking as an “effective place”
The Remote Work Act (LTD, Act 10/2021) requires the point from which work will be agreed upon. If that point is the employee's home, that is your workplace for judicial purposes.
Additional provision 3 of the LTD – invoked by the company – establishes criteria only “for administrative purposes,” not procedural ones. - Right to effective judicial protection (art. 24 CE)
Forcing teleworkers to litigate hundreds of kilometers away would violate the protective purpose of the LRJS. The Supreme Court recalls that teleworking is voluntary for both parties and that the employer assumes that consequence when signing. - Hybrid model
If the employee alternates home and office, he/she may file a claim in:
- Your address (place of partial service).
- The physical center if the defendant can be summoned there.
- The company's address.
This is provided for in the second paragraph of article 10 of the LRJS.
- Your address (place of partial service).
Practical implications
For the working personThe Supreme Court's doctrine offers a clear advantage: you can file the lawsuit in the court of your own city, avoiding costly travel and a potential financial obstacle when defending your rights. Furthermore, it strengthens legal certainty for those who provide their services fully or partially from home, by unequivocally recognizing that their home is also their place of work for procedural purposes.
For the companyHowever, the resolution assumes that any dispute arising from a teleworking contract may be brought before the courts of the employee's location. Therefore, it is advisable to review remote work agreements, assess this territorial risk in the procedural strategy, and ensure that you have legal resources capable of acting in the different locations where your teleworkers reside.
Furthermore, the ruling opens the door to transferring this interpretation to other labor actions (salary claims, professional classification, etc.) when employment is carried out entirely from home.
Upcoming challenges
The doctrine affects thousands of "full remote" contracts signed after the pandemic and highlights other questions that still have no unanimous answer, such as:
- Applicable holidays to the teleworker who resides in a different community.
- Work inspection and time recording in private homes.
For now, the Supreme Court sends a clear message: The address where the laptop is turned on also counts as a workplace in court..
English 
Spanish