Criminal defence throughout Spain · offices in Madrid and Alicante
Article 172 ter punishes whoever, insistently and repeatedly and without legitimate authorisation, watches, pursues or seeks physical proximity, contacts by any means, misuses personal data or attacks the liberty or property of the victim. The decisive element is not annoyance, but the serious alteration of daily life.
In brief. Harassment is not a sensation: it is defined conduct. What decides these cases is the pattern, its proof and its accredited impact. We act both for the private prosecution and for the defence where the accusation arises from a break-up, a neighbourhood dispute or a badly reconstructed workplace situation. The work begins in the same place in both cases: fixing the facts with technical support before the account becomes contaminated.
Article 172 ter of the Criminal Code punishes whoever harasses a person by carrying out, insistently and repeatedly and without legitimate authorisation, surveillance, pursuit or the seeking of physical proximity, contact through any means, the improper use of their personal data, or an attack on their liberty or property. The decisive element is not the annoyance but the serious alteration of the victim’s daily life. That legal requirement turns every case into a problem of proof of pattern.
We act on both sides: for the private prosecution of victims, and for the defence where the imputation arises from a break-up, a neighbour conflict or a poorly reconstructed employment situation. In both positions the work starts at the same point: fixing the facts with technical support before the narrative becomes contaminated.
| Offence | Article | Penalty framework | Key factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stalking (basic offence) | 172 ter.1 | 3 months – 2 years or fine 6 – 24 months | Proven repetition and serious alteration of daily life |
| Stalking of a partner or ex-partner | 172 ter.2 | Upper half of the basic penalty | Present or past affective bond, or special vulnerability |
| Workplace harassment | 173.1 | 6 months – 2 years | Position of superiority and repetition of the hostile acts |
| Property harassment | 173.1 | 6 months – 2 years | Proven aim of forcing abandonment of the dwelling |
| Threats | 169 – 171 | According to the form | Gravity and credibility of the harm announced |
| Coercion | 172 | 6 months – 3 years or fine | Violence used and intensity of the conduct |
| Dissemination of intimate images | 197.7 | 3 months – 1 year or fine | Relationship with the victim, profit motive and reach |
| Breach of measures | 468.2 | 6 months – 1 year | A restraining measure or penalty in force; frequent concurrence with stalking |
Indicative frameworks under the Criminal Code in force. They do not constitute legal advice; classification and penalty require individualised analysis of the case.
A harassment case is won or lost on technical ground. Before drafting a single pleading we reconstruct the complete sequence of contacts, cross-reference times, locations and devices, and detect what is missing from the police report. Digital evidence is not simply filed: it is prepared, authenticated and explained to the court. That prior work sustains both a private prosecution and a defence against an instrumental complaint. Our internal method is LIWARD, Legal Intelligence Warfare for Defense.
Four errors ruin these cases. Complaining without a chronology: Article 172 ter requires insistence and repetition, and without an ordered timeline of every contact the court sees isolated incidents and dismisses. Destroying the metadata: forwarding screenshots or pasting them into a document removes traceability; export the full conversation, keep the original terminal and document the chain of custody. Replying to the harasser: answering to clear things up creates a two-way thread the defence will use to deny any refusal to communicate; the correct course is to cut contact, preserve and document. And breaching or tolerating breaches of measures: a restraining measure is not deactivated by consent, and the protected person’s agreement is irrelevant, while the investigated person adds an autonomous offence under Article 468.2.
Persons watched, pursued or contacted insistently: chronology, preservation, protection order and private prosecution.
Those accused after a break-up or dispute: reconstruction of who initiated each contact and in what context, and challenge of the pattern.
Workplace harassment from either side: documentation of the hostile acts and coordination with the employment jurisdiction.
Property harassment: utilities, works and pressure to force abandonment, defending and prosecuting.
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.
