Temporal validity of criminal law

Criminal law is governed by the general principle of non-retroactivity, meaning that it only applies to acts committed after its entry into force. However, retroactivity is permitted in the case of rules that are more favourable to the defendant, as an expression of humanity and substantive justice. This rule implies that, in the event of successive legislative reforms, the provision that is least burdensome for the defendant will always apply.

Victims' rights in criminal proceedings

Spanish law recognises as victims of crime any persons who have suffered physical, financial or moral damage as a result of criminal conduct. During criminal proceedings, victims have rights before, during and after the trial. The initial investigation is carried out by the judicial police under the supervision of an investigating judge, who refers the case to the Public Prosecutor's Office. If there are grounds for prosecution, the prosecutor brings charges before the court. Victims may participate as witnesses or bring a private prosecution, which gives them greater procedural powers and access to additional rights.

Rights in the event of arrest and search

The police in Spain may arrest a person with a valid warrant. However, they may also do so without a warrant in specific situations: when the individual is committing a crime, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. In the event of an arrest, officers may enter and search the place where the detainee was immediately before or during the arrest. For other searches, a warrant is required, except in exceptional circumstances. Officers must identify themselves, show their credentials if they are not in uniform, and explain the reason for entering, as well as the occupant's rights.

The driver refuses to undergo alcohol and drug tests, even though he was outside the vehicle.

The driver was intercepted by police officers while outside his vehicle, showing clear signs of being under the influence of alcohol and narcotic substances, specifically cocaine.

The defendant was duly informed of his legal obligation to undergo alcohol and drug detection tests, as well as of the legal consequences of refusal. Although he initially agreed, he later repeatedly refused and displayed aggressive behavior towards the officers.

Even though the defendant was outside the vehicle at the time of the police intervention, there was no doubt that he had been the driver, since no evidence suggested that another person had driven the vehicle.

The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant's refusal to undergo the tests constitutes a criminal offense under Article 383 of the Penal Code. Consequently, he was convicted, as his conduct was deemed deserving of criminal reproach.

The first EU law on soil will enter into force.

The first EU law on soil monitoring and resilience will enter into force in December, with the aim of restoring soil health, which is essential for agriculture, pest resistance, and food security.

Soil degradation, including erosion, compaction, and pollution, is a serious problem across all EU countries, generating significant costs.

The law covers all types of soil, including forests, agricultural land, and urban areas. Member States will be required to monitor and assess soil health, adapting the requirements to their local conditions. In addition, they will receive support from the European Commission, such as capacity building and a soil health data portal.

The directive does not set binding targets or prohibit activities, but it encourages the mitigation of land take and the protection of agricultural soils. It also addresses pollution in risk areas, requiring reduction measures and public access to relevant information.

Overall, the law seeks to improve knowledge about soil health, increase its resilience, and contribute to the EU's objectives on climate, biodiversity, competitiveness, and food security.

Legal Classification of PMVs and Criminal Liability for Their Operation

The growing use of personal mobility vehicles, particularly electric scooters, has led courts to clarify their legal classification and their impact on road safety. Although many of these devices are considered PMVs, their classification depends strictly on their technical specifications. When an electric scooter exceeds the power or speed limits established for this category, it is classified as a moped under Regulation (EU) 168/2013, which entails additional obligations for its operation.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court examined the case of a rider stopped by the police while using an electric scooter that, due to its technical performance, should have been classified as a moped. The defendant did not hold the required driving licence for such a vehicle. The Court confirmed that driving a vehicle legally considered a moped without the appropriate licence constitutes a criminal offence against road safety, reaffirming its previous doctrine on vehicle classification and the legal obligations that follow.

This jurisprudence highlights the importance of understanding the technical specifications of the vehicle being used, as its external appearance does not determine its legal category. When an electric scooter exceeds the parameters of a PMV, the user becomes subject to the obligations and responsibilities applicable to mopeds, including the need for a driving licence. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the relevance of this distinction for ensuring road safety and preventing criminal liability.

Judgment 980/2025: The Supreme Court clarifies the legal nature of photocopies in fraud cases

The Supreme Court, in its judgment No. 980/2025 of November 26, has set an important precedent in the interpretation of the crimes of forgery and fraud by upholding an appeal against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Murcia. The case concerned a defendant who presented photocopies of official documents to obtain loans, without those copies being certified or intended to appear as originals. The Provincial Court classified the conduct as forgery of an official document, but the Supreme Court corrected this assessment and declared that uncertified photocopies lack probative value as public documents and must be legally considered private documents. The Court reaffirmed its established doctrine: only when there is an intentional simulation of the original can a document be deemed public. Consequently, the Court concluded that Article 392 of the Criminal Code, relating to forgery of official documents, does not apply, but rather Article 395, which penalizes forgery of private documents. Furthermore, under Article 8.4 of the same Code, this forgery is absorbed by the crime of fraud, as it constitutes a means of commission with a lesser penalty than the principal offense. The appeal also raised the issue of undue delays, which the Public Prosecutor considered inadmissible in cassation for not having been addressed on appeal. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the allegation was indeed made on appeal, although not expressly examined by the Provincial Court, thus ruling out a per saltum appeal. Nevertheless, the Court rejected the mitigating circumstance, as no abnormal periods of procedural inactivity or extraordinary circumstances were proven. The final ruling upheld the appeal regarding the legal classification of forgery, annulled the judgment of the Provincial Court, and declared that the facts constitute forgery of a private document absorbed by fraud, imposing a one-year prison sentence and declaring costs ex officio. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between public and private documents in criminal law, especially in cases where documentary deception serves as a means to commit fraud, and confirms that an uncertified photocopy cannot be equated with an official document.