Exceeding the Investigation Time Limit Does Not Void Evidence or Require Dismissal

Article 324 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal — LECrim) sets a maximum time limit for the pre-trial investigation phase. Its introduction into criminal practice has generated a recurring question: what happens to the investigative record when that limit runs out? Does everything done become void? Must the examining judge dismiss the case? The Supreme Court, in its judgment resolving case 5183/2023 of 25 February 2026, provides a clear answer.

The Art. 324 LECrim time limit and its purpose

Article 324 of the LECrim introduced maximum time limits for pre-trial investigation with the aim of ending indefinitely open investigations. Its current wording stems from Law 2/2020 of 27 July, which replaced the earlier regime of Law 41/2015 —which distinguished between simple and complex cases— with a single twelve-month period from the opening of the proceedings, extendable by the examining judge by order, for successive periods of up to six months, where there are reasons justifying it.

The purpose of the time limit is, in essence, one of procedural management: to restrict the period during which the examining judge may continue to take investigative steps. It is not a procedural precondition or a condition of the action, but a temporal boundary on the exercise of the judicial investigation power. This characterisation determines the scope of its consequences when it is exceeded.

In practice, the most common situations are two: that the investigation has not been concluded when the limit expires; and that, once the limit has run out, doubt arises as to what procedural value the steps already taken retain. It is this second question that the Supreme Court ruling addresses most thoroughly.

The Supreme Court's ruling: preserved validity

The Supreme Court resolves the matter clearly: exceeding the maximum investigation time limit does not render the investigative steps taken during the investigation null and void. The reasoning rests on the distinction between the temporal consequence of the expiry and the grounds for the nullity of procedural acts.

The expiry of the time limit bars any further investigation but does not have a retroactive effect on what has already been done. Steps taken before the limit ran out retain, under this doctrine, full validity for use at the trial hearing, provided they were obtained in compliance with the adversarial principles and the right of defence.

The Chamber reasons that the grounds for nullity of procedural acts are those established as a matter of general law in the procedural code, and that the failure to comply with a time limit does not figure among them where no fundamental right has been infringed as a result. Nullity requires a direct link to the violation of a right — a link that the mere passage of an investigation time limit does not in itself supply.

No automatic dismissal

The second consequence that the Supreme Court rejects is the automatic dismissal of the case solely because the investigation time limit has been exceeded. This point has considerable practical importance, since the expiry is sometimes invoked as though it were an independent ground for closing the proceedings.

A full or provisional dismissal responds to specific, enumerated conditions: that the facts do not constitute a criminal offence, or that there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion of criminality, respectively. Article 324 LECrim does not add a third ground consisting in the mere passage of the investigation period. Therefore, once the limit has run out, the examining judge is not empowered to dismiss on that basis, nor can the defence demand it on the strength of the expiry alone.

What the judge must do, once the limit has expired, is refrain from ordering new investigative steps — unless the extension or authorisation mechanisms provided by the LECrim are properly invoked. The opening of trial, where appropriate, remains subject to the ordinary rules.

Procedural guarantees remain independent

The doctrine set by the Supreme Court does not obstruct the ordinary avenues for challenge. If a step taken — whether within or outside the time limit — violated the fundamental rights of the persons under investigation, nullity of that step can and should be sought, but on the basis of the breach of the relevant right, not of the failure to comply with the time limit.

The right of defence, the right to a trial with full guarantees, and the prohibition on obtaining evidence in breach of fundamental rights retain their force regardless of whether the investigation time limit was still running when the steps were taken. These are substantive, not formal, guarantees whose operation does not depend on the state of the time-limit count.

This distinction is relevant to defence strategy: arguing nullity on the basis of the expired time limit, without coupling it to the breach of a specific right, is unlikely to succeed in the light of this doctrine. By contrast, identifying the precise guarantee that was violated and building the nullity argument on it is the correct approach that the case law leaves open.

Practical consequences for defence and prosecution

For the defence, the ruling clarifies the playing field: the expiry of the time limit is a useful argument to oppose the taking of new steps, but it does not serve to invalidate retroactively the steps already taken or to obtain dismissal on that ground alone. The focus of defence strategy should be on identifying substantive irregularities in the steps taken, not on exploiting the formal fact of the expiry.

For the prosecution — both public and private — the judgment confirms that the evidentiary material gathered during the investigation does not lose its validity simply because the investigation extended beyond the time limit. The strength of the evidence depends on the conditions under which it was obtained, not on the state of the time count when the limit ran out.

The Supreme Court's ruling thus contributes to settling an interpretation of Article 324 LECrim that is consistent with its original purpose: to establish a temporal boundary on the criminal investigation without converting that boundary into a mechanism for the retroactive voiding of everything done. The time limit operates prospectively, closing off further investigative steps; it does not operate retrospectively, erasing those already taken.