Alicante and province · 24-hour assistance · offices in Madrid and Alicante
One accident, three sets of proceedings, and none of them waits for the others: criminal, Labour Inspectorate sanctions and the social jurisdiction. All three feed on the same material, including what you said on the first day.
In brief. After a serious workplace accident three fronts open in parallel: the criminal case (Articles 316, 317, 142 and 152 of the Criminal Code), the Labour Inspectorate’s sanction file, and the social claim with the surcharge on benefits of Article 164 of the General Social Security Act. They have different rules, deadlines and standards of proof, but identical information. The order in which you are called to speak determines, in practice, how the matter ends.
A worker falls from scaffolding on a facade renovation in Benidorm. Another loses three fingers to a cutting machine in a workshop in the Las Atalayas industrial estate. A seasonal worker is electrocuted handling an irrigation pump in the Vega Baja. In all three cases the same thing happens in the following hours, and it happens in parallel. The criminal front opens: with death or serious injury, the Guardia Civil or local police prepares a report and the investigating court takes up the case. The Labour Inspectorate front opens: a visit, a request for the preventive documentation and, often, an infringement notice. And the social front opens: the worker or their heirs claim compensation, contest the contingency before the INSS and the mutual insurer, and appear in the surcharge file. Where there is permanent incapacity, a large part of the money is decided there.
These three proceedings have different rules, different deadlines and different standards of proof. What they do not have is different information. They all drink from the same well: the inspector’s report, the appearance records, the health and safety plan, the risk assessment, the training and PPE-delivery records, the subcontracting book and the statements given in the heat of the moment, before anyone had read Article 316 of the Criminal Code. Hence the approach of this page: the order in which you will be called to speak determines, in practice, how the matter ends.
| Front | Where | What is decided | The key point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal | Investigating court of the district | Articles 316/317 and the result (142, 152) | The Article 324 LECrim clock and the expert evidence |
| Inspectorate | Labour Inspectorate | Remedy, stoppage (Art. 44 LPRL) or infringement notice | 15 working days for representations; what is said there is read later in court |
| Social | Social courts and INSS | Compensation and the Article 164 LGSS surcharge | The surcharge (30-50%) is paid by the employer and cannot be insured |
| Interaction | All three | The same documents and statements circulate | Explaining much in one file can fix a version prematurely in another |
| Suspension | Criminal | Prison under two years, first offender: Art. 80 CP | Paying the civil liability is the factor that weighs most |
| Sanction bar | Criminal and administrative | No double punishment for the same facts and basis | After acquittal the administrative file resumes, bound by the proven facts |
| Insurance | Civil liability policy | Civil compensation within policy limits | Neither the fine nor the surcharge nor the penalty is covered |
| Court of Auditors route | Social security | Surcharge treated as compensatory, not punitive | It runs in parallel and survives the criminal outcome |
This overview is indicative. The interaction between the three proceedings depends on the specific facts and procedural moment of each case; references must be verified before being relied upon and this page does not constitute legal advice.
We do not promise results, and in this field some uncomfortable truths must be stated from day one. A fatal accident is rarely closed without more. Where there is a death and an Inspectorate report finding breaches, the expected course is that the case advances to trial or to a negotiated judgment. What can be controlled is the perimeter of the imputation, the classification and the figure: taking the classification from Article 316 to Article 317, closing the civil liability with the insurer and reaching a suspendable penalty is often the useful defence, and saying so early avoids spending two years and much money on an unwinnable battle.
Delegation of duties has limits. Appointing a supervisor does not automatically transfer the director’s responsibility: the delegate must have real powers, resources and the authority to stop the work. Where the supervisor could decide nothing without calling the boss, the delegation does not hold, and the reverse also happens: there are cases where the director is excluded and the middle manager remains.
A compliance programme does not save by itself here: corporate criminal liability does not extend to all offences, and in this field the Criminal Code’s main response is Article 318, which directs the penalty at directors and service managers. That said, a serious, documented and living preventive organisation is decisive to establish where the duty lay and who held it.
On the right to know the material before speaking, constitutional doctrine is directly transferable: STC 21/2018 of 5 March (ECLI:ES:TC:2018:21), STC 13/2017 of 30 January (ECLI:ES:TC:2017:13) and STC 86/2025 of 7 April (ECLI:ES:TC:2025:86) establish that no one should give a statement without prior access to the essential elements. Those rulings were issued in detention and habeas corpus contexts, not in workplace-accident proceedings; the principle, however, supports requesting access to the file before any statement as a suspect. References must be verified at source before being relied upon in any pleading.
Construction and renovation companies, metal workshops, carpentries, cleaning firms, fruit and vegetable warehouses, recreational boating. Their immediate worry is prison; their real exposure is usually the sum of the surcharge, the fine and the compensation.
The middle manager is the most exposed and worst advised figure. The company’s lawyer often defends the company; where we detect that conflict we say so and recommend independent defence.
External prevention services, senior prevention technicians and health and safety coordinators whose reports and appointments are under examination. Foreign residents: we work with interpreters and review what was signed.
We also act for the private prosecution. It is a different position demanding different decisions, above all as to when and how to accept compensation. We never take both sides in the same or related matters.
Speak to a criminal lawyer
Criminal defence in English before the courts of Alicante and the rest of Spain, for residents and for visitors who have flown home.
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert es un despacho de abogados con sedes en Madrid, Alicante, Londres y París, especializado en defensa y acusación penal, delitos económicos y corporativos y derecho tecnológico. Trabajamos con orientación estratégica en procedimientos penales complejos, propiedad intelectual y análisis forense avanzado, y prestamos consultoría jurídica, compliance y escudos de protección a particulares y empresas. Atendemos desde Alicante y Madrid, con consulta online en toda España y asistencia al detenido 24 horas. Resuelva sus dudas en las preguntas frecuentes o solicite una primera consulta.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
