Article 446 punishes the judge or magistrate who knowingly hands down an unjust judgment or decision, with the most severe frame reserved for an unjust judgment against the accused in criminal proceedings for a serious or less serious offence.
The judge or magistrate who knowingly hands down an unjust judgment or decision shall be punished:
1. With a penalty of imprisonment of one to four years if the matter concerns an unjust judgment against the accused in criminal proceedings for a serious or less serious offence and the judgment has not been executed, and with the same penalty in its upper half and a fine of twelve to twenty four months if it has been executed. In both cases the penalty of absolute disqualification for a term of ten to twenty years shall also be imposed.
2. With a penalty of a fine of six to twelve months and special disqualification from public employment or office for a term of six to ten years, if the matter concerns an unjust judgment against the accused handed down in proceedings for a minor offence.
3. With a penalty of a fine of twelve to twenty four months and special disqualification from public employment or office for a term of ten to twenty years, where any other unjust judgment or decision is handed down.
Working translation prepared by Société Juridique from the consolidated Spanish text published by the Official State Gazette. It has no official status: the only authoritative version is the Spanish original, available at the Official State Gazette and reproduced verbatim in our Spanish-language entry for this provision. Source: Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November, the Spanish Criminal Code.
The concept of an unjust decision. The case law requires a flagrant and manifest departure from the law, and not merely an erroneous or debatable interpretation. Establishing that the decision rests upon a defensible legal reading, even a minority one, excludes the offence altogether.
Knowledge of the injustice. The provision punishes only the knowing conduct, negligent prevarication falling under Article 447. The reasoning of the decision itself, and the material available in the file at the time, are the evidence upon which that knowledge is assessed.
Judicial independence as a limit. The offence cannot be used as a means of reviewing a judicial decision. Where the ordinary remedies were available and were not exhausted, or where a higher court merely disagreed with the decision, the criminal complaint is habitually inadmissible.
Execution of the judgment. The first frame distinguishes according to whether the judgment was executed. Establishing that it was not, or that its effects were suspended, avoids the imposition of the penalty in its upper half together with the fine.
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.
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.