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.

09/12/25

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 Judgment No. 980/2025 of November 26, set an important precedent in interpreting the crimes of forgery and fraud. The case involved a defendant who submitted photocopies of official documents to obtain loans. These copies were neither certified nor intended to appear as originals. The Provincial Court of Murcia classified the conduct as forgery of an official document. The Supreme Court corrected this, stating that uncertified photocopies lack probative value as public documents and must be considered private documents. Only an intentional simulation of the original can render a document public. Consequently, Article 392 of the Criminal Code does not apply; Article 395, concerning forgery of private documents, is relevant. Under Article 8.4, this forgery is absorbed by fraud, as it constitutes a means with a lesser penalty than the main offense. The appeal also addressed undue delays, which the Public Prosecutor considered inadmissible for not being raised on appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that the allegation was made on appeal, though not expressly examined by the Provincial Court, rejecting a per saltum appeal. No mitigating circumstances were recognized. The Court annulled the Provincial Court's judgment and imposed a one-year prison sentence and ex officio costs.

Investigative Secrecy and Right to Defense in Pretrial Detention

The recent STC 23/02/2026 marks a milestone in protecting the right to defense against investigative secrecy in Spain. The Constitutional Court ruled that lawyers cannot be satisfied with generic summaries of charges, but have the right to access essential evidence, such as recorded phone conversations, marking reports, and search records, when deciding on pretrial detention of a defendant.

The doctrine establishes that the mere declaration of investigative secrecy (Art. 302 LECrim) cannot limit access to essential evidence. The only exception is a judicially reinforced justification showing that certain evidence is not indispensable for the case. This ensures that the defense can fully exercise its right to challenge liberty-depriving measures, in accordance with Articles 17.1 and 24.2 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the ruling introduces a principle of request: the defense must explicitly request access to evidence at the start of the hearing, under the risk of preclusion if it fails to act. The decision has retroactive review effect, allowing ongoing pretrial detentions to be reconsidered to partially lift investigative secrecy.

In a context of increasing procedural complexity, this STC strengthens transparency, legal certainty, and fundamental rights, ensuring that pretrial detention is based on complete and accessible information.