Last updated: 30-Sep-2026. Salamanca, Spain
Update: Added a six-part programme for using existing documents and explicit sector-specific implementation requests, with a supplementary schedule. The agreed authentication and documentary solutions are retained.
<aside>
Problem: a person has a Belarusian public document but cannot obtain the apostille required for its use in a Spanish procedure. This is different from having no document or lacking the information that the document should contain.
What should happen first: identify the exact Spanish requirement and use any existing lawful exemption, acceptable document, official channel or other adequate evidentiary route. A new procedure is unnecessary where an existing one resolves the problem.
The proposed common solution: where the authentication requirement remains unresolved, record why the apostille cannot be obtained, verify the document's official origin through another lawful and sufficiently reliable method, and issue a reasoned finding on authenticity. The receiving authority then assesses translation, contents and the outcome of the application separately. The proposal does not make every document without an apostille acceptable.
Where it would apply: the developed common mechanism addresses authentication in defined State procedures, including university recognition and judicial public-document treatment. The university-specific proposal is an alternative implementation where the common mechanism does not lawfully cover or resolve that requirement—not a second compulsory reform that every applicant must await.
Related actions: use the existing Civil Registry and protection-family alternatives; clarify nationality's separate identity and criminal-record requirements; and address Embassy-issued documents through the distinct MAEUEC legalisation route. Missing academic information remains governed by the separate reconstruction and assessment proposal described in Memo II.
Who should act: the competent justice, university, migration and protection authorities, with MAEUEC for authentication and consular matters, each within its powers. They should identify the available alternatives and determine the necessary instrument for the precise remaining obstacle. The requested result is a workable verification and decision procedure, not an automatic instruction to change the law.
The new mechanisms remain proposals. They do not grant automatic recognition of a qualification, recognition of a judgment, residence or nationality. Sections 11–13 explain their conditions and practical implementation.
Additional implementation requests: sections 11.7–11.8 ask institutions to make existing documents and legal pathways usable: correct authentication and translation, the right recognition procedure, workable handling of deadlines, retrieval of previous files, reasoned assessment of older evidence, and specific Civil Registry, education, professional and protection-family actions. These accompany the new mechanisms; they are not additional conditions that an applicant must satisfy before using an existing right.
Accompanying legal commentaries
Belarus documents when apostille is unavailable
University documents when apostille is unavailable
IBDED_Memo_III_institutional_action_plan.pdf
IBDED_Memo_III_implementation_supplement.pdf
</aside>
Contents
<aside> <img src="notion://custom_emoji/084fa322-631c-4d6a-8f5e-4c488ef080c2/3d59e408-1e26-81f1-806b-007a417d1da0" alt="notion://custom_emoji/084fa322-631c-4d6a-8f5e-4c488ef080c2/3d59e408-1e26-81f1-806b-007a417d1da0" width="40px" />
Obtaining a document, authenticating it, translating it and proving the fact required by the Spanish procedure are separate tasks. Their requirements may be checked in parallel, including where the person already holds an older copy. An authentication finding cannot create missing information or decide a separate recognition question.
</aside>
Belarusian nationals in Spain may need documents issued by public authorities, courts, civil registries, educational institutions or notaries. Possession of a document does not settle how it can be used in Spain. The receiving procedure may require authentication, translation and proof of particular facts, each with its own conditions.
Spain and Belarus participate in the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention. Within its scope, the apostille authenticates the signature, the capacity in which the signatory acted and, where appropriate, the seal or stamp. It does not certify the document's substantive contents or replace a document that does not exist. [1]
Two practical problems must therefore remain distinct. The person may be unable to obtain the underlying document, or may hold it but be unable to complete the required authentication. In each case the Spanish procedure determines whether an exemption, alternative evidence, direct verification or another mechanism is available.
This memorandum examines the sequence obtaining the document → authentication → translation → recognition or evidentiary use. It retains the existing sector-specific alternatives and explains a proposed common verification mechanism for the authentication problem that remains. The mechanism would not lower the substantive standard for deciding the underlying application.
The proposal also requires a practical outcome. A record explaining that an apostille is unavailable is not enough: there must be an authorised method of checking authenticity, a reasoned result and a clear statement of what remains for the receiving authority to decide. Where current powers already permit that result, they should be used. Where a binding rule prevents it, the competent institutions should identify the precise obstacle and decide the necessary action.
The Convention of 5 October 1961 simplifies authentication of covered foreign public documents by replacing the relevant diplomatic-legalisation formality with an apostille. It applies to the categories and circumstances defined in the Convention, not to every document that a person may wish to submit. It excludes documents executed by diplomatic or consular agents and the specified administrative documents dealing directly with commercial or customs operations. [1]
Article 3(2) preserves cases in which the receiving State's laws, regulations, practice or an applicable agreement abolish or simplify the formality. A valid Spanish sector-specific exception is therefore not displaced merely because the document originates in a Convention State. Conversely, the Convention does not itself create a new Spanish exemption where the governing procedure still requires authentication.
The Convention presupposes an existing public document. It does not determine whether a person can obtain that document, whether its statements prove the required fact, or whether a judgment or qualification must be recognised.
Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 simplifies the circulation of the covered public documents issued by authorities of one Member State for presentation in another. Article 2(3) excludes third-country documents and Member-State-certified copies of those documents. A certified copy of a Belarusian document does not become exempt merely because an EU authority certified the copy. A separate record actually issued by a Member State is a different instrument and must be assessed on its own origin, subject matter and effect. The Regulation does not determine recognition of substantive legal effects. [2]