.svg)
Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code, introduced in its current wording by Law 41/2015, sets specific time limits for the criminal investigation phase in order to guarantee swift and efficient criminal justice and reduce undue delays.
The provision stipulates that the investigation must conclude within a maximum period of twelve months, although successive extensions are allowed if agreed upon by a reasoned judicial decision. This provision establishes a significant time limit by striking a balance between the demands of the criminal investigation and the rights of the defendant (the right to defense and to a trial without undue delay, Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution).
However, judicial practice has led to controversies over the consequences of non-compliance with this time limit. Recent case law, particularly the judgment STS 1046/2024, reaffirms the doctrine established in STS 836/2021 and thoroughly examines how actions performed outside the time limit should be treated and what effects this has on the criminal procedure.
A significant aspect of the judgment is the classification of the verification of phone calls carried out by the Court Clerk. The Supreme Court makes a key distinction between ordinary investigative actions and those that are instrumental or preparatory:
• Ordinary actions: These are judicial actions that have a direct impact on the investigation phase. They are fully subject to the time limit set by Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code and must be decided and carried out within the prescribed time frame.
• Instrumental or preparatory actions: These actions facilitate the inclusion of information or documentation previously obtained. They do not represent a new evidentiary innovation but serve a technical or auxiliary function for the processing of the case.
The Court holds that the verification of recordings carried out by the Court Clerk belongs to the second category, as it is: “A documentary activity that facilitates access to genuine evidentiary information, without constituting in itself a substantial investigative action.”
Thus, the verification is not subject to the time limit of Article 324, as it does not involve the obtaining of new evidence. This distinction is relevant because it flexibilizes the scope of Article 324, allowing the execution of technical or auxiliary actions beyond the investigation period without incurring in nullity.
Another crucial aspect addressed in the judgment is the relationship between the non-compliance with Article 324 and the violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial (Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution).
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court reiterates that the breach of the time limits established by Article 324 does not, by itself, constitute a constitutional violation, partially contradicting other recent decisions, such as STS 974/2024, which warned of a possible risk of legal defenselessness.
The Court concludes that:
As stated in the judgment: “The invalidity of actions taken after the time limit only affects the decision that ends the investigation but does not undermine the validity of the evidentiary material in the trial phase.”
This statement introduces an important distinction between expired investigative actions and illegal evidence, consolidating a doctrine that allows the use of investigative elements carried out beyond the time limit in the trial, as long as no fundamental rights have been violated.
One of the most controversial points of the judgment is the procedural paradox that arises from the analysis of Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court acknowledges that:
• An investigative action carried out after the time limit cannot serve as the basis for the decision to close the investigation or to continue the criminal procedure.
• However, that same action may be used as valid evidence in the trial, provided it was not obtained unconstitutionally.
The Court states: “The evidentiary validity of the information obtained is not compromised by the untimeliness of the investigative action.” This conclusion has been critically analyzed in legal doctrine, as it represents a distortion of Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The judgment reflects a flexibilization of the system of time limits in Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code by introducing new categories of actions:
• Instrumental: Technical or documentary actions that do not materially change the investigation.
• Preparatory: Actions that facilitate the inclusion of previously obtained information.
The risk of this doctrine is that these categories could proliferate and become a mechanism to circumvent the compliance with the investigation time limit. As legal critics point out: “The creation of new legal institutions, such as instrumental or derived actions, could flexibilize the system to the point of eliminating it in practice.”
It is necessary to establish clear boundaries to prevent these categories from diluting the effectiveness of Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judgment STS 1046/2024 consolidates a doctrine that softens the consequences of non-compliance with Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing the use of actions carried out beyond the time limit as evidence in the trial. While the Court reiterates that this irregularity does not affect fundamental rights, the interpretation is criticized for distorting the time limit and allowing practices that may undermine the effectiveness of the criminal process.
It is essential to address the weaknesses of the system through legislative or case law reforms that:
• Strengthen the practical effectiveness of Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Introduce clear consequences for actions taken outside the time limit.
• Guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the investigation and the rights of the defendant.
The judgment reflects a structural tension between the need to flexibilize the process in order not to obstruct the investigation and the obligation to respect the procedural time limits as guarantees for the defendant. This balance remains one of the major challenges of the criminal process in Spain.
.svg)
