Article 410 Spanish Criminal Code: Refusal by Officials to Comply with Judicial Decisions

Article 410 of the Spanish Criminal Code punishes the person in authority or public official who openly refuses to give due effect to judicial decisions, or to decisions or orders of a superior authority issued within the scope of their competence and with the legal formalities. The penalty is a fine of three to twelve months and disqualification from public office of six months to two years. The second paragraph contains the counterweight that matters in practice: there is no criminal liability for failing to comply with a mandate that constitutes a manifest, clear and definitive infringement of a statutory or other general provision.

Wording of Article 410 of the Spanish Criminal Code

Elements of the offence

1. A perpetrator who is a person in authority or a public official.
2. A judicial decision, or a decision or order of a superior authority, issued within the scope of the issuing body’s competence and with the legal formalities.
3. An open refusal to comply. Delay, partial compliance, a request for clarification or a reasoned objection through the proper channel are not an open refusal.
4. The absence of the ground of exemption in paragraph 2, that is that the mandate does not constitute a manifest, clear and definitive infringement of a legal provision.

Defence strategy

The refusal was not open. The article requires an open refusal, which the case law reads as a categorical and unequivocal rejection. Delay caused by lack of resources, compliance in terms the issuing body considers insufficient, a request for clarification, or the raising of a legal objection through the established channel do not satisfy the element. The defence documents every step taken by the official, since the file usually shows activity rather than refusal.

The exemption in paragraph 2. An official is not obliged to execute a manifestly unlawful mandate, and refusing it is not an offence. The defence must show that the infringement was manifest, clear and definitive, not merely arguable, and it does so with the legal reports obtained at the time. This is the reason why an official facing such an order should record his objection in writing before refusing, and that record is what later founds the defence.

Competence and formalities of the mandate. The decision must come from a body acting within its competence and must be clothed with the legal formalities. Verbal orders, orders from a body lacking competence over the matter, and decisions not notified in due form do not generate the duty. The defence verifies the chain: who issued the order, under what power, and how it was communicated.

Attributing the duty to the right person. Where compliance depended on a chain of officials, on budgetary availability or on a decision of a collegiate body, the duty may not rest on the accused personally. Establishing the actual distribution of functions, and what the accused was in a position to do, frequently removes him from the article altogether.

• Article 404: prevarication by officials
• Article 556: resisting or disobeying the police
• Spanish Criminal Code by article
• Spanish-language entry

This entry is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of any provision depends on the circumstances of the individual case and requires examination of the case file by a qualified lawyer.