info@societejuridique.com
Madrid: Paseo de la Castellana 216 8 ª Planta
Alicante: Av. Ansaldo Nº31, local 16
24h emergencies: 669 30 21 13
Undue delay as a mitigating circumstance: article 21.6 of the Spanish Criminal Code
Quick answerArticle 21.6 of the Spanish Criminal Code mitigates the sentence where proceedings suffer an extraordinary and undue delay that is not attributable to the defendant and is disproportionate to the complexity of the case. As a simple mitigating circumstance it confines the sentence to its lower half; as a qualified one it requires a reduction of one or two degrees under article 66.1.2.
Also cited as: undue delay · mitigating circumstance of undue delay · dilaciones indebidas · art 21.6 CP · article 21.6 Spanish Criminal Code.
The circumstance was added to the list in article 21 by Organic Act 5/2010 of 22 June, giving statutory rank to an earlier judicial construction derived directly from the right to a trial without undue delay under article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution and article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its practical importance is considerable: in a jurisdiction where hearings are listed two and three years ahead, the qualified form is frequently the difference between imprisonment and a suspended sentence.
Legal framework
Article 21.6 of the Criminal Code: the following is a mitigating circumstance, an extraordinary and undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings, provided it is not attributable to the defendant himself and is not proportionate to the complexity of the case.
Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution: everyone has the right to a public trial without undue delay and with full safeguards.
Article 66.1.2 of the Criminal Code: where two or more mitigating circumstances concur, or one or more qualified ones, and no aggravating circumstance is present, the courts shall impose the penalty one or two degrees below that laid down by law.
Statutory texts cited from the consolidated versions published by the Spanish Official State Gazette. Unofficial English rendering; the Spanish text is the authentic one.
Key rule. The overall length of the proceedings is not enough. The specific period of inactivity must be identified and shown to be neither attributable to the defence nor proportionate to the complexity of the case.
Key facts
| Location | Book I, title I, chapter III of the Criminal Code, mitigating circumstances |
|---|---|
| Introduced by | Organic Act 5/2010 of 22 June, in force since 23 December 2010 |
| Basis | Article 24.2 of the Constitution and article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights |
| Requirements | Extraordinary and undue delay, not attributable to the defendant, disproportionate |
| Effect as simple | Sentence in its lower half, article 66.1.1 |
| Effect as qualified | Sentence one or two degrees below, article 66.1.2 |
| When to raise it | In the written defence and final submissions, identifying the periods of inactivity |
Elements and scope
- An extraordinary delay, that is, one exceeding what is ordinary in the relevant jurisdiction. Case law sets no automatic period, although it usually treats as significant periods of inactivity exceeding one year and proceedings running beyond four or five years from their commencement.
- An undue character, which excludes delay arising from the complexity of the case itself, the number of defendants, international letters rogatory or the taking of complex expert evidence.
- Non-attributability to the defendant, so that delays caused by his failure to appear, by a warrant for his arrest, by adjournments sought by his defence or by manifestly dilatory appeals do not count.
- Disproportion to the complexity of the case, a comparative assessment requiring the time taken to be set against the real difficulty of the matter.
- Timely pleading and identification of the specific periods of inactivity, with page references, since case law rejects a general invocation of the overall length of the proceedings.
Points of application
Inactivity as distinct from length. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court distinguishes between lengthy proceedings and stalled proceedings. What matters is not the time elapsed but the existence of periods of unjustified inactivity, which the defence must identify precisely.
The qualified form. It is reserved for delays of particular intensity. Case law has treated as qualified both prolonged periods of inactivity and proceedings of manifestly excessive length relative to the simplicity of their subject matter.
Compatibility with a guilty plea. The circumstance is compatible with a guilty plea and with the other mitigating circumstances of article 21, so that its concurrence with reparation of harm or confession may support the reduction under article 66.1.2.
Effect on enforcement. Where the reduction brings the sentence to two years or less, suspension under article 80 becomes available, which is why the point should be worked up from the written defence and not improvised in closing submissions.
Relationship with limitation. The inactivity founding the mitigating circumstance may at the same time satisfy the premise for limitation under article 132, so both routes should be examined together.
Defence strategy
Prepare a chronology of the proceedings. This is the decisive work: a schedule of steps with dates and page references, marking the intervals with no useful procedural activity. Without that document the plea rarely succeeds.
Rule out attribution to the defence. It should be established that adjournments were not sought by the client and that he attended every summons.
Argue the simplicity of the case. Disproportion is assessed by contrast. The limited number of defendants, the absence of letters rogatory and the simplicity of the evidence should be stressed.
Expressly seek the qualified form. The request should be express and in the alternative: qualified with a two-degree reduction, alternatively one degree, and alternatively simple.
Anticipate the effect on suspension. The resulting sentence after reduction should be calculated in the written defence, with the requirements of article 80 established in advance.
Are you under investigation or facing charges in Spain? Société Juridique acts for foreign nationals throughout Spain, with offices in Alicante and Madrid and a 24-hour custody line. +34 669 30 21 13 or enquire online.
- Spanish Criminal Code by article
- Criminal Procedure Act by article
- Practical defence guides
- Contact the firm
This page is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of any provision depends on the circumstances of the case and requires review of the file by a lawyer. The English rendering of the legal text is unofficial.
Last reviewed: 21 September 2026.
Frequently asked questions
How long must proceedings last for the circumstance to apply?
There is no automatic period. Case law looks to the specific periods of unjustified inactivity and to disproportion with the complexity of the case, rather than to overall length taken in isolation.
What is the difference between the simple and qualified forms?
The simple form requires the sentence to be imposed in its lower half. The qualified form allows a reduction of one or two degrees under article 66.1.2, which frequently determines whether a custodial sentence is served.
Does delay count if I changed lawyers or sought adjournments?
No. Delays attributable to the defendant are excluded, so it is advisable to document that adjournments were not sought by the defence.
When must it be raised?
It should be introduced in the written defence and maintained in final submissions, identifying the periods of inactivity with page references. A general invocation is usually rejected.
Is it compatible with a guilty plea?
Yes. It is compatible with a guilty plea and with the other mitigating circumstances, and its concurrence with reparation of harm or confession strengthens a request for a two-degree reduction.
Paseo De La Castellana 216 8º 28046 Madrid
Alicante – Playa de San Juan Av. Ansaldo 31, local 16, 03540 Alicante
London: 20 Wenlock Road, N1 7GU, United Kingdom
Paris: 72 Faubourg St Honoré, 75008, France
info@societejuridique.com
SERVICES
LINKS
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert is a law firm with offices in Madrid, Alicante, London and Paris, specialising in criminal law, technology law and economic and corporate crime. We provide strategic guidance in complex criminal proceedings, intellectual property and technological resources for legal decision-making with advanced forensic analysis. Our multidisciplinary team combines legal experience, legal intelligence and personal attention to deliver effective solutions adapted to each case. Legal assistance available 24 hours a day and online consultations.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
Where we act: Alicante·Madrid·Elche·Torrevieja·Orihuela·Benidorm·Alcoy·San Vicente·Elda·Denia·Villajoyosa·Villena·Novelda·Ibi·All locations
Defence by offence: Drink driving·Robbery and theft·Assault·Sexual offences·Threats·Squatting·Homicide·Criminal records