.svg)
The reform of Article 324 LECrim introduced a maximum period of 12 months for criminal investigations, with the possibility of a reasoned judicial extension. This measure sought to avoid lengthy instructions and introduce greater temporal control over the criminal process.
However, this requirement has generated considerable legal uncertainty: what happens to investigative measures agreed or carried out after the deadline? Are they null, invalid or merely irregular?
1. Late proceedings are not null and void per se
The Second Chamber rejects a criterion of automatic nullity. Although it recognizes that the expiration of the time limit implies a procedural preclusion, it points out that this does not imply that the late proceedings lack probative value or should be excluded from the trial.
A key distinction is thus introduced: estoppel limits the procedural moment in which evidence can be used, but not its substantial validity, provided that procedural guarantees have been respected and no lack of defence has been caused.
2. Chained diligence as justification for delay
The practice of proceedings after the deadline is considered valid if they are "chained" to previous ones that could not be carried out in time for justified reasons, such as lack of available information or previous proceedings still pending.
This allows the criminal jurisdiction to preserve the effectiveness of the investigation, even within a restrictive time frame, provided that the untimely action is a logical and necessary consequence of the previous development of the procedure.
3. Late call by the person under investigation: infringement of the right of defence
Here the Court adopts a stricter position: when the investigated person is formally charged outside the legal period, he is deprived of participating in the investigation, which violates his right of defense and compromises the validity of his accusation.
This assumption does entail a constitutional affectation, as it prevents the investigated person from exercising his rights of contradiction and evidence under equal conditions.
4. Complementary proceedings in the intermediate phase
The judgment admits that in the intermediate phase complementary measures may be requested and agreed, but only exceptionally and if they are essential to determine the legal classification of the facts.
It is not a covert reopening of the investigation, but a limited procedural tool to avoid premature or unjustified resolutions of dismissal or accusation.
The Court stresses that Article 324 LECrim does not have constitutional status and its purpose is to order the procedure, not to condition the essential validity of the process. Therefore, non-compliance cannot in itself generate radical nullities, unless a real affectation of fundamental rights is found.
This approach is in line with a consolidated jurisprudence according to which nullity is not an automatic sanction, but an exceptional measure to protect substantial guarantees of the process.
STS 317/2025 reaffirms a line of jurisprudence that interprets article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Law from a functional perspective, preventing the expiration of the investigation deadlines from automatically resulting in the nullity of the proceedings carried out out of time. The Second Chamber opts for a material reading of the criminal proceedings, in which failure to comply with the legal deadline does not imply, in itself, an infringement of fundamental rights, unless there is a real lack of defence.
This criterion allows for untimely proceedings to be avoided provided that essential guarantees are not violated, especially in the case of evidence that has already been requested previously or that is necessary due to new circumstances. However, the Court does draw a clear limit in relation to the late indictment of the person under investigation, which is considered contrary to the rights of the defence if it prevents his participation in the investigation.
At Fukuro Legal we have already analysed this approach in the study of STS 1046/2024, where a key distinction was introduced between ordinary proceedings, subject to the time limit, and proceedings of an instrumental or technical nature, which would be excluded from the calculation. This classification has been received with reservations by the doctrine, considering that it may make the regime of deadlines excessively flexible and introduce elements of legal uncertainty.
Both STS 1046/2024 and this resolution show a clear trend: to preserve the usefulness of expired proceedings as evidence in court, as long as they have not been obtained unconstitutionally. This position, however, raises an in-depth debate on the true effectiveness of Article 324 LECrim. If the failure to comply with the deadline does not entail relevant procedural consequences, the rule runs the risk of becoming an empty formal guarantee.
In short, the sentence reflects an attempt to balance two fundamental requirements of the criminal process: the investigative effectiveness of the system and respect for the procedural guarantees of the investigated. However, this interpretative flexibility requires a clearer development of case law and, perhaps, a legislative review that reinforces legal certainty and delimits more precisely the consequences of the expiry of the investigation period.
.svg)
