Carmen, 79 years old and from Murcia, cannot collect her prize from the ONCE because her husband enrolled her in the self-prohibited list of gambling.

The cancellation (removal) of a registration in the General Registry of Gambling Access Prohibitions (RGIAJ) is possible but subject to certain requirements and minimum time periods. The basic regulations require, in the case of voluntary state self-exclusion, that at least six months have passed since the registration and that a specific administrative procedure be processed before the state gambling authority. When the registration comes from an autonomous community or a judicial ruling, the cancellation is governed by stricter rules: in many cases, only a judge or the autonomous community itself can order it. The usual steps and the distribution of state/autonomous community competencies are detailed below.

Basic regulatory framework of the RGIAJ

The RGIAJ is created in Article 22 of the Law 13/2011, on gambling regulation, as a registry of persons prohibited from accessing gambling activities at the state level. Its regulatory development is contained in Royal Decree 1614/2011, which specifically regulates:

• Purpose and organization of the General Registry of Gambling Access Prohibitions (Chapter III).
• Forms of registration: voluntary, by third party with judicial basis, by judicial resolution, and by referral from autonomous community registries.
• Validity of registrations and cancellation rules (articles on validity and cancellation).
• Cooperation with autonomous communities and interconnection agreements of registries (Article 62).

Additionally, the Resolution of July 12, 2012 develops the mechanisms for controlling subjective prohibitions (automatic cross-checking of the RGIAJ with operators' databases). The Royal Decree 176/2023 updates several provisions of the RGIAJ, especially regarding data exchange with autonomous registries and validity/cancellation.

When can self-exclusion be canceled?

According to the text of Royal Decree 1614/2011 (with amendments from Royal Decree 176/2023):

• Registrations at the request of the interested party (state self-exclusion): are indefinite in duration, but the article on validity establishes that the interested party may request cancellation once six months have passed since registration.
• Registrations at the request of a third party (based on judicial resolution): can only be canceled by judicial resolution or, if requested by the applicant, with the express acceptance of the registered person.
• Registrations by judicial resolution: are subject to the term or conditions set by the judicial body itself; cancellation requires a new judicial resolution.
• Registrations sent by autonomous community registries: remain valid until the originating autonomous community communicates the cancellation. The Royal Decree itself indicates that, if provided by the agreement, cancellation cannot be requested before the RGIAJ, but rather before the autonomous community that sent the data.

Administrative cancellation procedure at the state level

The cancellation procedure of a registration in the RGIAJ is regulated in the articles on modification and cancellation of data of Royal Decree 1614/2011:

• Who can initiate the procedure:
  • The registered interested party themselves (in voluntary self-exclusion and, if applicable, when the registration comes from a third party).
  • The third party who requested the registration (with acceptance of the registered person, when required).
  • The judicial body that ordered the registration.
  • The originating autonomous community, if it is a registration received from a connected autonomous registry (under the terms of the agreement).
• How to request it:
  • By submitting a cancellation request addressed to the state gambling regulatory authority (Directorate General for Gambling Regulation or its successor), using the standardized form approved by that authority.
  • Submission at the General Administrative Registry of the competent state body or at any of the places admitted by administrative procedure legislation (general electronic registry, assistance offices for registries, etc.). The Royal Decree allows the use of electronic means.
• Processing:
  • A cancellation procedure is conducted, with a hearing, when appropriate, to the third party who requested the registration.
  • The state authority may request documentation to prove that the requirements are met (for example, that the minimum six months have passed).
  • The competent body issues a reasoned resolution agreeing or denying the cancellation.
• Deadline and silence:
  • The Royal Decree sets a six-month deadline to resolve and notify the cancellation request.
  • If that period passes without an express resolution, the cancellation is deemed approved by positive administrative silence, and the cancellation must be carried out in the Registry.

Once the cancellation is carried out, the Registry records the cause and date of the cancellation and notifies the agreement to the interested party and, if applicable, to the third party who initiated the registration and the judicial body that ordered it.

Relationship with autonomous community registries

Autonomous communities have competence over in-person gambling in their territory and usually have their own registries of prohibited persons. Article 62 of Royal Decree 1614/2011, amended by Royal Decree 176/2023, provides for State–Autonomous Community agreements to:

• Interconnect gambling access prohibition registries.
• Establish the procedure for registration, modification, and cancellation in the RGIAJ of data contained in autonomous registries.

In practice, this means that:

• If a person registered directly in an autonomous community registry and their data was sent to the RGIAJ, the removal usually must be requested first before the autonomous community itself, which then communicates the cancellation to the State.
• If the registration was made in the RGIAJ, the cancellation of the state self-exclusion is processed through the described state procedure, although cancellation of possible autonomous effects may require additional procedures before each community.

No further information is available in the consulted sources about specific forms or electronic offices, which depend on the current organization of the state gambling authority and each autonomous community.

The Madrid High Court of Justice (TSJM) is the body that culminates the judicial organization in the Community of Madrid and, within the contentious-administrative order, assumes judicial control of the actions of the Madrid public administrations when established by the Law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. Its competencies are generally supported by the Organic Law of the Judiciary and, for administrative control, by Law 29/1998. In gambling and recreational activities matters, the TSJM does not have specific own regulation but exercises control over authorizations, sanctions, and other administrative acts issued by the Community of Madrid bodies according to this general framework. Law 6/2001 on gambling in the Community of Madrid defines the administrative power of authorization, inspection, and sanction, whose acts are ultimately reviewable by the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.

Position of the Madrid High Court of Justice in the judicial organization

The Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) configures the High Courts of Justice as bodies that “will culminate the judicial organization in the Autonomous Community,” according to the state-autonomous design established by the Constitution. This design is explained in the preamble and organizational part of the LOPJ, highlighting that Autonomous Communities participate in judicial demarcation and structure, while the High Courts concentrate the jurisdictional apex in their territory (regulation accessible in Organic Law 6/1985).

Within this framework, the Madrid High Court of Justice is the highest ordinary jurisdictional body in the Community of Madrid for contentious-administrative matters that do not correspond to the Supreme Court or other specific bodies.

General competencies in the contentious-administrative order

Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, subjects to judicial control the activity of public administration of any kind subject to Administrative Law, “articulating the appropriate procedural actions.” Its statement of reasons emphasizes that:

• The contentious-administrative jurisdiction guarantees the submission of the Administration to law and rights.
• It controls both regulatory activity and administrative acts as well as patrimonial liability and separable acts from public contracts.
• It unifies in this jurisdictional order the patrimonial liability of administrations, avoiding dispersion of actions.

This general configuration of the jurisdiction is found in Law 29/1998, which distributes competencies among Contentious-Administrative Courts, High Courts of Justice Chambers, National Court, and Supreme Court. The Law itself explains that the creation of Contentious-Administrative Courts responds to the need to “unload” the High Courts of Justice from a large number of cases of lesser economic or social significance, maintaining in them the most relevant cases and the so-called residual clause.

Control of the Madrid High Court of Justice over Madrid administrative law

Based on the LOPJ and Law 29/1998, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Madrid High Court of Justice is responsible for:

• Hearing disputes about actions of the main bodies of the Community of Madrid subject to Administrative Law, when Law 29/1998 attributes competence (for example, against general autonomous provisions or acts of certain superior bodies).
• Resolving legality issues related to the legal regime and sanctioning power of the autonomous community in sectors such as public service, urban planning, environment, shows, and recreational activities, etc., according to applicable autonomous law.
• Raising, when appropriate, questions of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court regarding autonomous laws applied in contentious-administrative matters; examples include several questions raised by the Madrid High Court Chamber that have led to Constitutional Court rulings published in the BOE.

A particularly close example to leisure activities is the unconstitutionality question that led to STC 160/2019, related to Article 39.4 of Law 17/1997, on public shows and recreational activities of the Community of Madrid, where the Constitutional Court analyzes the legality of the autonomous sanctioning regime based on a question raised by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Madrid High Court (ruling 160/2019).

Competencies in gambling and betting matters

Autonomous administrative framework

Law 6/2001, of July 3, on gambling in the Community of Madrid (Gambling Law), establishes the material and competency framework for:

• Authorization of gambling companies and establishments, machines, and bets.
• Inspection, surveillance, and control of gambling and betting.
• Sanctioning regime for gambling infractions, distinguishing between very serious, serious, and minor infractions.

The Law dedicates Title IV to inspection and sanctioning regime, where “the sanctioning competency regime is established, distributing competencies both in the investigative phase and the sanctioning phase.” It specifies the amounts of fines for each type of infraction and indicates which administrative bodies (General Directorate competent in gambling matters, corresponding Ministry, and Government) resolve sanctioning proceedings, also noting that these resolutions end the administrative route.

Law 4/2014, on fiscal and administrative measures of the Community of Madrid, introduces important modifications to the Gambling Law, for example on authorizations and sanctioning regime (Law 4/2014). In turn, different sectoral regulations (Betting Regulation, Recreational Machines Regulation, etc.) have been adjusted by Government Council decrees, such as Decree 42/2019 (Decree 42/2019) or Decree 22/2011 on collective games and electronic bingo (Decree 22/2011).

Role of the Madrid High Court in judicial review

Although Law 6/2001 does not expressly mention the Madrid High Court, by establishing a complete system of authorizations, inspection, and sanctions in gambling matters, its administrative acts are subject to review by the contentious-administrative jurisdiction under the general terms of Law 29/1998. This means that:

• Sanctioning resolutions and decisions on authorizations can be challenged before the competent contentious-administrative bodies after exhausting the administrative route.
• When it concerns acts or provisions of the superior bodies of the Community of Madrid in gambling matters, judicial control may correspond to the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Madrid High Court, according to the functional and objective competence criteria established by Law 29/1998.
• In case of doubts about the constitutionality of the autonomous gambling regulations applied in a specific case, the Madrid High Court Chamber may raise a question of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, as it has done in other leisure and recreational sectors.

Thus, the Madrid High Court acts as a guarantor of legality and the rights of companies and users against autonomous administrative decisions in gambling and other recreational activities, within the general framework designed by the LOPJ and Law 29/1998.

The state-level gambling self-exclusion registry is the General Registry of Gambling Access Prohibitions (RGIAJ), created by Law 13/2011 and developed by Royal Decree 1614/2011, with subsequent adjustments by Royal Decree 176/2023. Registration allows a person to request to be prohibited from participating in gambling activities subject to identification. Below is a summary of who can register, how to apply, what documentation is required, how representation works, and the minimum duration and causes for denial according to current regulations.

Applicable basic regulations

• Law 13/2011, on gambling regulation, articles 7 and 22: creates the RGIAJ and defines subjective prohibitions of gambling access (Law 13/2011).
• Royal Decree 1614/2011, on gambling licenses, authorizations, and registries, Chapter III (approx. articles 56 to 60): regulates purpose, organization, registry data, registration, validity, and cancellation of the RGIAJ (Royal Decree 1614/2011).
• Royal Decree 176/2023, on safer gambling environments, which:
  • Defines "self-exclusion" as the ability to request one's own registration in the RGIAJ (art. 2.c).
  • Modifies articles 56, 57, 60 of RD 1614/2011 on data, ex officio registrations, and validity (Royal Decree 176/2023).
• Resolution of July 12, 2012, on participant identification and control of subjective prohibitions, regulating operator access to the RGIAJ but not altering registration requirements (Resolution 12/07/2012).

Who can be registered in the RGIAJ

RD 1614/2011 (art. 57, modified by RD 176/2023) establishes that data of the following will be included in the RGIAJ:

• Persons who voluntarily request it, asking to be prohibited from gambling access.
• Persons with pathological gambling addiction, by their own request or that of a third party.
• Persons declared incapacitated or prodigal by final judicial sentence, and those subject to provisional measures limiting gambling access.
• Persons to whom a final sentence limits gambling access, as main or accessory penalty, and those affected by similar provisional measures.
• Any other person with gambling access limitations established by law.
• Persons registered in autonomous community prohibition registries, whose information is incorporated ex officio into the RGIAJ through agreements with autonomous communities.

Law 13/2011 already prohibits participation of minors and incapacitated persons in gambling; the RGIAJ acts as an additional protection and control mechanism.

Application method and documentation

The registration procedure (arts. 57 et seq. of RD 1614/2011) contemplates three routes:

• Registration at the request of the interested party (self-exclusion):
  • The standardized form approved by the regulatory authority (Directorate General for Gambling Regulation) must be used.
  • The application can be submitted at the General Administrative Registry of the regulatory body or at any of the places in art. 38.4 of Law 30/1992 (now replaced by Law 39/2015), including electronic means, according to electronic administration regulations.
  • It can also be submitted at admission or identification services of gambling establishments; these must send the data electronically within 24 hours and send a copy with the identification document within 7 days.
  • It is essential to provide DNI or equivalent identification document (for Spaniards or foreigners).
• Registration at the request of a third party with legitimate interest:
  • A final judicial resolution ordering the registration must be attached.
  • Denial can only be based on lack of legitimacy of the applicant or insufficiency of factual or legal grounds alleged.
  • The interested party or their legal representative, guardian, or curator is given 10 days to make allegations.
• Registration ordered directly by judicial resolution, carried out within the period set in RD 1614/2011.

Physical presence is not mandatory in all cases, as submission in general administrative registries and by electronic means is expressly provided.

Deadlines, minimum validity, and cancellation

• Registration deadline: as a general rule, the regulatory authority must agree on registration within one month from the start of the procedure, reduced to three days in voluntary and judicially ordered registrations.
• Duration of registration at the request of the interested party:
  • It is registered indefinitely.
  • Cancellation can only be requested after six months from registration (art. 60.1 RD 1614/2011, modified by RD 176/2023).
• Registrations at the request of a third party: last the time set in the judicial resolution; if not set, they are indefinite, and cancellation requires a new judicial resolution or request by the third party with acceptance of the registered person.
• Registrations by judicial resolution: validity according to what the sentence or resolution establishes.
• Registrations from autonomous registries: indefinite validity until ex officio cancellation at the request of the originating autonomous community.

Cancellation is processed through a specific procedure; in registrations at the request of the interested party, positive silence applies if not resolved within six months.

Causes for denial

According to RD 1614/2011, when registration is requested by a third party, the application can only be denied for:

• Lack of legitimacy of the applicant.
• Insufficiency of factual or legal grounds on which the request is based (e.g., absence of judicial resolution when required).

In self-exclusion requests by the interested party, the regulation does not provide substantive causes for denial beyond correct identification and completion of the standardized form, as it is a right to be excluded from gambling recognized in Law 13/2011.