The Offence of Insults: Articles 208 to 210 CP, Penalties and Defence

No one has to put up with being insulted or publicly humiliated, but not every reproach, every criticism or every outburst is a crime. The offence of insults in Articles 208 to 210 of the Criminal Code (CP) draws that line, and it does so more strictly than many people assume. As criminal lawyers specialising in offences against honour, we explain what exactly a criminal insult is, when an insult stays within the civil sphere, what penalties it carries and how it is defended.

What an Insult Is (Art. 208 CP)

Article 208 CP defines an insult as the action or expression that harms another person's dignity, damaging their reputation or attacking their self-esteem. The protected legal interest is therefore honour in its two dimensions: reputation (the regard in which others hold the person) and self-esteem (each person's own sense of dignity).

The decisive point is that not every insult is a crime. Article 208 itself limits it in its second paragraph: only those insults that, by their nature, effects and circumstances, are regarded by public opinion as serious amount to a crime. The same paragraph adds a proviso that is often overlooked: "without prejudice to the provisions of Article 173(4)". In other words, a minor insult is still a (minor) offence where the victim is a spouse, partner or former partner, or another family member covered by Article 173(2) CP. Outside that circle, minor insults fall outside the Criminal Code and are, where appropriate, resolved through the civil protection of the right to honour.

Only Serious Insults Are a Crime

Seriousness is not measured by how sensitive the victim is, but by an objective test: what public opinion regards as serious in the context in which the expression is made. The same word may be criminal in some circumstances and irrelevant in others. That is why context —the medium, the tone, the relationship between the parties, the purpose— is decisive.

Article 208 also adds a special rule where the insult consists of the imputation of facts: such imputations are not deemed serious unless made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In practice this means that, if a dishonourable conduct is attributed to someone (one that does not amount to a crime, because that would be slander), the imputation is only a serious insult where it was made knowing it to be false or with no regard for checking its accuracy. This rule should not be confused with the exceptio veritatis (defence of truth) in Article 210 CP, which is a separate ground of exemption and applies only where the insult is directed at public officials.

Is Insulting Someone a Crime? Minor Insults and Article 173(4) CP

This is the question we are asked most often, and the answer turns on two points: whether the insult is serious and who it is aimed at. Until 1 July 2015 the Criminal Code contained a petty offence of minor insults, dealt with in the old petty-offence trials. Organic Law 1/2015 abolished petty offences and, with them, a minor insult between private individuals ceased to be a criminal matter. The position today is as follows:

• A serious insult against anyone: an offence under Articles 208 and 209 CP, punishable by a fine of three to seven months, or six to fourteen months if made publicly.
• A minor insult between private individuals (a one-off insult in a row with a neighbour, a colleague or a stranger): not a crime. The civil route under Organic Law 1/1982 on the civil protection of the right to honour remains available if the offence is significant enough.
• A minor insult against a person covered by Article 173(2) CP —a current or former spouse or partner, even without cohabitation, descendants, ascendants or siblings, and the other cases listed in that provision—: a minor offence under Article 173(4) CP, punishable by a permanent location order of five to thirty days, always served at an address different from and away from the victim's, community service of five to thirty days, or a fine of one to four months (the fine only where the circumstances of Article 84(2) CP apply).

The minor offence of Article 173(4) can only be prosecuted on a report by the victim or their legal representative, and it is tried under the procedure for minor offences, which we explain in our guide to the immediate trial for minor offences. You can read the text of the provision on our Article 173 CP page.

Insults directed at police officers during an intervention are a separate matter. An insult against a public official concerning facts relating to their office is prosecuted by the State of its own motion (Article 215(1) CP), and if the insult comes with an assault, serious intimidation or resistance, the classification changes: see our guide to resisting and disobeying authority under Article 556 CP.

An Insult Is Not the Same as Slander

This is the most common confusion. Slander (calumnia, Art. 205 CP) means attributing a specific crime to someone with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth: accusing a person of having stolen, defrauded or assaulted someone when it is not true. An insult, by contrast, does not attribute a specific crime: it covers the remaining attacks on honour —abuse, smears, dishonourable imputations that are not crimes—.

The consequence is highly relevant in terms of penalty: slander may be punished with imprisonment, whereas an insult is punished with a fine. Correctly establishing which of the two offences is at stake is the first step in any strategy, whether for the defence or for the prosecution. Where a crime is imputed, see our guide to slander under Article 205 CP. You can also read our page about the offence of slander.

Penalties for the Offence of Insults (Art. 209 CP)

Article 209 CP grades the penalty according to the publicity with which the serious insult is committed:

• Serious insults made publicly: a fine of six to fourteen months.
• Serious insults without publicity: a fine of three to seven months.

Publicity, under Article 211 CP, is present where the insult is spread by means of similar effectiveness to the printing press, broadcasting or any other comparable means of dissemination —which today clearly includes social media, open messaging groups and websites—. The daily amount of the fine is set according to the convicted person's financial means, so the final sum can vary considerably from one case to another.

It is worth recalling that Article 210 CP sets out a specific exemption: a person accused of an insult is exempt from liability by proving the truth of the imputations where they are directed against public officials concerning facts relating to the exercise of their office or referring to the commission of administrative infringements.

Two further rules in the same chapter affect the penalty and civil liability: where the insult is made for a price, reward or promise, special disqualification of six months to two years is added (Article 213 CP), and where it is spread publicly, the natural or legal person that owns the media outlet used is jointly and severally liable in civil terms (Article 212 CP).

Insults on Social Media

The internet has turned disputes over honour into an everyday occurrence. A comment on a social network, a review, a message in a large group or a post on a website may amount to the offence if it meets both requirements: seriousness and, for the aggravated band, publicity. Spreading the insult in an open environment raises the penalty to the six-to-fourteen-month fine band.

In principle, the author of the message is liable. But sharing, reproducing or amplifying someone else's insulting content may create personal liability, because it amounts to making the offence public once again. To prove the facts it is essential to keep screenshots showing the date, time and URL, and ideally a notarial record or a reliable capture that preserves the evidence before the content is deleted. We cover digital evidence and the most common scenarios in our guide to slander and insults on social media.

Where the insult targets someone because of their origin, religion, sexual orientation or another discriminatory ground, the case may move out of the offence of insults and into the hate offence of Article 510 CP, which does not depend on a complaint by the victim. We analyse it in the context of online abuse of athletes.

Freedom of Expression Versus Honour

The offence of insults operates in permanent tension with freedom of expression and freedom of information (Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution). The settled case law of the Constitutional Court has established a basic principle: freedom of expression protects criticism, even if harsh, unwelcome or wounding, especially where it concerns matters of public interest or persons in the public eye, who must tolerate a greater degree of criticism.

The limit, however, lies in the gratuitous insult: formally insulting expressions that are unnecessary for the message being conveyed and are vexatious are not protected by freedom of expression. Defending against a charge of insults often involves placing the expression within the legitimate sphere of criticism and showing its connection with a matter of public debate.

An Offence Prosecuted Only on the Victim's Complaint

An insult is a private offence. Article 215 CP is clear: no one shall be punished for an insult except on a complaint (querella) by the offended person or their legal representative. The Public Prosecutor does not act of its own motion (except where the offence is directed against a public official, authority or agent regarding facts of their office). This means the proceedings are only started if the offended person files the corresponding complaint.

Furthermore, the victim's pardon extinguishes the criminal action. This dispositive nature opens, in many cases, a path to settlement through retraction, public rectification or reparation, which may bring the proceedings to an end without the need for a trial.

How to Bring a Complaint for Insults: Conciliation, Private Prosecution and the One-Year Limit

A person who has been insulted cannot simply report it at a police station and wait: a serious insult requires a private criminal complaint, and the procedure has its own requirements which, if overlooked, close the criminal route.

1. One-year time limit. The offences of insults and slander become time-barred after one year (Article 131(1) CP), compared with the general five-year period for less serious offences. It is a short window and should not be left to the last minute, because the next step has to be completed before the complaint is filed.
2. Prior conciliation hearing. A complaint for insults or slander against private individuals is not admitted unless it is accompanied by a certificate showing that a conciliation hearing with the accused has been held, or attempted without success (Article 804 of the Criminal Procedure Act, LECrim). Besides being a requirement, conciliation is often the moment when a retraction is obtained.
3. Insults made in court proceedings. If the insult was made in judicial proceedings, the prior leave of the judge or court that heard them is also required (Article 215(2) CP and Article 805 LECrim).
4. The document containing the insult. If it was made in writing, the document containing it must be submitted wherever possible (Article 806 LECrim); online, screenshots and a notarial record serve that purpose.

A retraction is possible during the proceedings: if the accused acknowledges before the court that the imputations were false or unfounded and retracts them, the penalty one degree lower is imposed, and the victim may ask for the retraction to be published in the same medium in which the insult was spread (Article 214 CP). If there is a conviction, redress also includes the publication or dissemination of the judgment at the convicted person's expense (Article 216 CP). We explain each step in detail in our guide to private prosecution for defamation: conciliation and the one-year limit.

Lines of Defence

1. Lack of seriousness: showing that the expression does not reach the threshold of public seriousness and remains, at most, within the civil sphere.
2. Animus iocandi or criticandi: establishing that the purpose was to joke, criticise or inform, not to disparage; the absence of an intent to insult is central to this offence.
3. Truth of the facts: where the insult consists of the imputation of facts, proving they were true —or that there was a reasonable basis to believe them— excludes criminal seriousness.
4. Context and freedom of expression: framing the expression within a matter of public interest or legitimate criticism protected by Article 20 of the Constitution.
5. Procedural defects: verifying the existence and validity of the complaint, standing and time limits, which are essential requirements in a private offence.