Last updated: 30-Sep-2026. Salamanca, Spain
Update: Clarified the prior-document retrieval procedure, its limits and the institutional request in Memorandum III.
<aside>
Problem: a Spanish administration may already hold the foreign document needed for an application, yet the person is asked to obtain it again from Belarus.
Solution: identify the earlier filing, retrieve the document through the lawful channels and check whether it still proves what the present procedure requires. Only then decide whether another document is genuinely necessary.
Result: reuse of sufficient evidence, confirmation that no new document is required, or a precise explanation of failed retrieval or a remaining defect. Retrieval does not make old information permanently current.
</aside>
Article 28 of Law 39/2015 distinguishes documents held by the acting administration, documents prepared by another administration and documents previously supplied by the applicant. For previously supplied material, Article 28(3) requires the person to identify when and before which administrative body it was presented. The administration must seek it electronically through the available lawful systems, subject to the rules on opposition and any express consent required by special law. [1]
The same provision prohibits demands for documents not required by the governing rules and generally excludes demands for originals unless an exceptional applicable rule provides otherwise. Article 28(5) permits a reasoned request to compare a copy with the original where the document's significance or doubts about the copy justify it. The rules on originals, authentic copies and the applicant's responsibility for truthfulness remain.
This is not a promise that every foreign document is automatically available in every Spanish database. If the administration cannot retrieve previously supplied material, Article 28(3) expressly permits an exceptional renewed request. The reason for that request should be distinguished from a conclusion that the underlying foreign fact is unproved.
The first question is whether the previous document can lawfully be obtained. The second is whether it still establishes the fact needed now.
A birth, award of a qualification or historical marriage or divorce event may remain provable through an older document if the receiving rules do not require a new issue and the record contains the necessary information. Age alone is not a universal evidentiary defect. Identity continuity, missing data, authentication and legal effect must still be assessed.
By contrast, a procedure may need current criminal-record information, present civil status or professional standing. Retrieving an old document does not remove the applicable currency requirement. A certificate relevant to one country, period or purpose may also be insufficient for another. Nationality, a particular professional college and a regional partnership register do not share one universal freshness period. [2]
The receiving body should first state the exact fact and documentary requirement. It should then identify the previous body, file and filing date from the applicant's information, attempt lawful retrieval and record the result. If obtained, the document should be assessed for the present purpose.
A sufficient Spanish recognition or registration decision may also resolve the need to reproduce the same underlying foreign evidence. However, the effect of that decision and any later authority's own requirements must be checked; previous acceptance does not automatically establish every fact in a new procedure.
Where the previous file cannot be found, the record should distinguish insufficient locating information from technical failure or a legal restriction on retrieval. The applicant should not be asked to solve a new Belarusian source-access problem without an explanation of why the earlier Spanish filing cannot resolve it.
The authority handling the application should incorporate a prior-document check before demanding another foreign issue. Common administrative guidance and retrieval arrangements can be coordinated by the bodies responsible for general administrative procedure and public governance, while the receiving body retains the individual evidentiary decision.
The proposed record identifies the fact required, previous submission, body/file/date, retrieval attempt, result, present sufficiency and the legal reason for any renewed request. It should support use of existing electronic channels, not create an additional certificate that the applicant must obtain.
Written result: one of four clear outcomes: the document is retrieved and reused; it is retrieved but a specific content or currency defect remains; retrieval fails and the renewed request is explained; or the authority confirms that no new Belarusian document is needed.
A new-document notice should state whether the problem is failed retrieval, genuinely outdated information, missing contents, a special original-document rule or another precise requirement. Those reasons should not be merged into a generic instruction to submit a new certificate.