The New Criminal Procedure Law (LECrim): What the Prosecutor-Led Bill Proposed and Why It Lapsed

Few procedural reforms have generated as much anticipation —and as much confusion— as the announced new Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, LECrim). Headlines and online articles sometimes suggest that "the prosecutor already runs criminal investigations" or that the 1882 LECrim "has been replaced". That is not the case. The text reached the Spanish Parliament as a government bill, but it was never passed: it lapsed on 6 October 2026 when Parliament was dissolved, and it would have to be reintroduced in the new legislature. It is not the law in force and it has no effect whatsoever on today's criminal cases. As criminal defence lawyers, we explain what the bill envisaged, why it is no longer before Parliament, and —above all— what stays exactly the same.

What the Bill Was and Why It Lapsed

The Council of Ministers approved the draft new LECrim and sent it to the Congress of Deputies in autumn 2025 (file 121/000074). Almost a year later it was still at the amendment stage before the Justice Committee when Royal Decree 806/2026 of 5 October dissolved the Congress and the Senate and called a general election for 29 November 2026. On dissolution, business pending before the Congress lapses (Article 207 of its Standing Orders), and the bill lapsed on 6 October 2026 without being passed. For Spain to have a new LECrim, a bill would have to be reintroduced in the new legislature and go through the whole parliamentary process again, during which the text could change substantially.

The practical consequence is clear: nothing in the bill is applicable. The criminal investigation phase is still governed by the Criminal Procedure Act in force, which —through all its reforms, most recently the far-reaching Organic Law 1/2025— keeps the juez de instrucción (investigating judge) in charge of the investigation. Any statement in the present tense about the "prosecutor as investigator" in Spain is simply inaccurate.

Nor is this the first time: over recent decades several preliminary drafts of a new LECrim were prepared and lapsed without ever being passed, with changes of parliamentary term in between. The 2025 bill has met the same fate, and that precedent counsels caution whenever a new text is announced: the fact that it is introduced does not, by itself, guarantee either its approval or its final content.

The Prosecutor as Investigator: What the Bill Proposed

The change of model that would give the reform its name is the transfer of the direction of criminal investigations to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Fiscal), replacing the current investigating judge. Under the text sent to Parliament, the prosecutor would lead the investigation phase: driving the investigative steps, coordinating the judicial police and deciding, at the end of that phase, whether to bring charges or to seek the closure of the case, always subject to mechanisms of control over that decision.

This would align Spain with the model prevailing in neighbouring European systems, where the investigation belongs to the prosecutor and the judge is reserved for a safeguarding role. The conditional tense matters: the bill lapsed without being passed, and if another text were introduced in a new legislature its scope could be different. Issues as significant as the status of the investigating prosecutor, their functional autonomy and the internal checks within the prosecution service were among the most debated points of the model.

The Judge of Guarantees: the Counterweight of the New Model

Handing the investigation to the prosecutor would not mean removing judicial control. The bill provided for a juez de garantías (judge of guarantees): a judicial authority that would not investigate, but would step in wherever fundamental rights are at stake. Under the projected scheme, this judge would be responsible, among other functions, for:

• Authorising investigative measures that restrict rights: searches of premises, interception of communications, examination of devices.
• Deciding on personal precautionary measures, notably pre-trial detention, which would in no case be left in the prosecutor's hands.
• Protecting the rights of the defence and of the victim during the investigation, ruling on disputes raised against the prosecutor's decisions.
• Reviewing the closure of investigations, as a safeguard against a possibly unjustified shelving of the case.

The definitive architecture of this division of roles —which decisions would require prior authorisation, which appeals would lie and before whom— could only be known if a final text were approved, and the bill that designed it was never passed.

Timeline: the 1 January 2028 Date Lapsed with the Bill

The bill as introduced set its entry into force for 1 January 2028. That long vacatio legis (transition period before a law takes effect) was no accident: a change of model of this magnitude would require expanding the staff of the Public Prosecutor's Office, adapting court and prosecution offices, reorganising the judicial map and training every legal operator before the first day of application.

That said, the date was a projection in the bill, not a firm commitment, and it depended on the law actually being passed. When the bill lapsed on 6 October 2026, the projection lapsed with it: today there is no entry-into-force date for a new LECrim, because there is no law and the bill that set the date has lapsed. If another text were introduced in the new legislature, that text would set its own timetable.

What the Bill Provided for Ongoing Cases

It was the question we heard most often at the firm: "if the new LECrim enters into force, does my case move to the prosecutor?". The answer given by the bill was reassuring: proceedings already initiated by the date of entry into force would continue to be processed under the current LECrim until their conclusion. No one would have seen their case "change hands" in the middle of the investigation, and steps already taken would not have had to be repeated. Now that the bill has lapsed, the question no longer arises: every case, whether already open or opened in future, is governed by the LECrim in force.

In practice, this would have meant two systems coexisting for years: older cases would have run their course under the current rules (investigating judge), while new cases, opened after the entry-into-force date, would have been born under the prosecutor-plus-judge-of-guarantees model. It is the same transitional scheme historically used in Spain's major procedural reforms.

What Does NOT Change

Against the background noise, it is worth pinning down what remains exactly the same now that the bill has lapsed:

• The investigating judge still leads the investigation. Statements as a suspect are given before the Investigation Section of the Court of Instance (Sección de Instrucción; formerly the Investigating Court), not before the prosecution service.
• Deadlines, appeals and procedural steps are unchanged. Applications for review, appeals, investigation time limits and the precautionary measures regime remain those of the LECrim in force.
• The reforms actually in force are different ones. What does apply today is Organic Law 1/2025 on the efficiency of the Justice system (reformed plea agreements, new fast-track trials, Courts of Instance) and the reform of precautionary measures introduced by Organic Law 1/2026.
• No case is closed or transformed because of the bill: it never had legal effect and, having lapsed, it is no longer before Parliament either.

Be wary of content that presents the prosecutor-led investigation as the law in force or still announces an entry-into-force date: the text that set it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved.

What It Means for You if You Have an Open Case

If you are under investigation, accused or a victim in ongoing criminal proceedings, the draft new LECrim changes nothing about your situation: it lapsed without being passed and your case is governed by the LECrim in force. The decisions that matter —how to testify, which investigative steps to request, how to challenge a precautionary measure— are played out under today's rules, not those of a bill that never became law.

What we do as a firm is keep track of procedural reform initiatives, and we keep a summary of what the lapsed bill proposed: if a new text were introduced in the new legislature, its content would shape strategy in investigations opened after it came into force. Anticipating the regulatory landscape is part of a serious criminal defence.