Insights and News on Criminal Law
The recent enactment of Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on Measures to Improve the Efficiency of the Public Justice Service (hereinafter, OL 1/2025), introduces for the first time into Spanish criminal law an explicit provision for alternative mechanisms for the resolution of criminal disputes. This is done through Additional Provision Nine, which regulates restorative justice as a voluntary, confidential, and cost-free mechanism for resolving criminal conflicts, even allowing for the dismissal or discontinuance of proceedings in certain cases following an agreement between the parties. This development, inspired by established practices in civil matters such as mediation and arbitration (extrajudicial procedures designed to prevent excessive litigation), raises questions regarding its true effectiveness and scope within the criminal process. Does this reform constitute a substantive change? Does it imply a diversion from or a complement to the judicial function?
The presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution, is a fundamental procedural guarantee that frames the criminal process as a mechanism for protecting the individual against the punitive power of the State. Its enforcement requires that any criminal conviction be based on sufficient evidentiary activity, conducted with full procedural safeguards, and assessed by an independent judicial authority.
Judgment 402/2025, delivered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, rules on an extraordinary application for review brought against a final judgment issued in 1995, which concluded with a conviction for multiple offences of violent robbery, rape, and unlawful detention. This judgment is of significant legal relevance not only due to its outcome — the annulment of a final conviction accompanied by an acquittal — but also due to the doctrinal shift it reflects in relation to the remedy of review as a legal instrument for safeguarding the principle of the presumption of innocence and material justice in the face of irreparable evidentiary errors. Specifically, the Chamber upholds the application for review on the grounds that new items of evidence have emerged which, although not directly proving the innocence of the convicted person, nonetheless introduce a reasonable doubt sufficient to undermine the strength of the incriminating evidence upon which the conviction was based, in accordance with Article 954.1.d of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal – LECrim).
Judgment 237/2025, issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court on March 13, 2025, resolves a cassation appeal filed by the private prosecution against the acquittal handed down by the Provincial Court of Cuenca. The case originated with a conviction by Criminal Court No. 2 of Cuenca for an offence of fraudulent insolvency under Article 257.1.2º of the Spanish Criminal Code, based on the conduct of a debtor who, knowing of a judicial seizure order over a tractor, proceeded to conceal and intentionally damage it.
Article 20.4 of the Spanish Criminal Code governs self‑defence, requiring (1) an unlawful attack, (2) the rational necessity of the means employed, and (3) absence of sufficient provocation. Jurisprudence demands rationality in the defensive means and excludes self‑defence where there is excessive force or duration of the response. In the Torrejón case, an off‑duty police officer asphyxiated a subdued thief. The conduct was excessive and unjustified, thereby precluding the application of self‑defence. Spanish criminal law prioritizes life over property and restricts defensive violence.
Criminal Court No. 6 of Almería acquitted our clients, two German nationals, who had been charged with attempted theft with force from a vehicle. Our defense strategy revealed serious procedural violations, including the absence of interpreter assistance and improper service of trial notice. Through a precise and effective cross-examination, we undermined the credibility of the sole incriminating witness by exposing material contradictions. The court’s ruling reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and highlighted the importance of an active and technically sound defense from the earliest stages of criminal proceedings.
At Fukuro Legal, we are pleased to share that our managing partner, Jorge Agüero Lafora, has been recognized by Leaders in Law as the exclusive expert in White Collar Crime for Spain.
In Judgment 86/2025, the Spanish Constitutional Court upheld an amparo appeal filed by a detainee whose habeas corpus application had been dismissed without a prior hearing or direct judicial verification. The applicant had been arrested under a police warrant for alleged theft and membership in a criminal group, but was denied access to the essential elements of the police report. The Court found a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 17 of the Spanish Constitution, both in terms of the lack of information concerning the grounds for detention and the absence of effective judicial control through the habeas corpus procedure.
his blog post breaks down the complexities of warrants under Spanish law, making the topic accessible to legal professionals, students, and curious readers alike.
Recommended criminal law firm
Our team of experienced attorneys is dedicated to safeguarding your interests. We offer strategic legal advice and defense in complex cases on an international scale, ensuring confidentiality and a strong commitment to every client.
Contact Us
Contact our criminal defense attorneys. The firm offers immediate action in any emergency situation.