Reducing a Sentence by One Degree Also Reduces the Proportional Fine
Last updated:
listIn this article
lightbulbKey Takeaways
- check_circleDegree reduction also covers the proportional fine
- check_circleAnalogy in bonam partem: TS Plenary Agreement 22-Jul-2008
- check_circleBasis: Arts. 66, 68, 70 CP and Art. 368.2 CP
- check_circleCassation via Art. 849.1 LECrim if the court omits it
Quick answer
When a court applies a mitigating circumstance or another legal ground that reduces a sentence by one degree, the reduction is not limited to the custodial penalty: it also covers any proportional fine imposed as an accompanying penalty. The Spanish Supreme Court, in a public-health (drug) case, applies analogy in bonam partem and follows the Chamber's Plenary Agreement of 22 July 2008, reducing the fine by the same degree as the prison term. The principle is clear: a degree reduction operates across all penalties attached to the offence, not only the custodial one. Knowing this doctrine enables the defence to claim the correct calculation of the fine at the final pleadings stage and, where necessary, on cassation appeal.
Calculating the sentence in a criminal case does not end with working out the prison term. When a court applies a benefit that allows a degree reduction, questions arise about which penalties are affected and to what extent. The Spanish Supreme Court has resolved one of the most common: the treatment of the proportional fine when the custodial sentence is reduced by one degree.
The Plenary Agreement and analogy in bonam partem
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court adopted the Plenary Agreement of 22 July 2008 to unify the treatment of proportional fines when the main penalty is reduced by degree. The rule is straightforward: the degree reduction extends to all penalties attached to the offence, not only to the custodial one. The technical instrument underpinning it is analogy in bonam partem, which allows a solution favourable to the defendant to be extended where the statute does not expressly provide for it but the logic of the system requires it.
In the ruling that reiterates this doctrine, the Chamber resolves a public-health offence in which the trial court had reduced the prison term by one degree but left the proportional fine untouched. The Supreme Court corrects that error and also reduces the fine, capping its maximum at the upper limit of the new degree resulting from the reduction.
The sentencing rules
The CP regulates degree reductions in Articles 66 and 68, which allow the penalty one or two degrees lower where highly qualified mitigating factors apply, where the attempt so justifies, or where the offence provision expressly provides for it. Article 70 CP sets the scale: the penalty one degree lower has as its maximum the minimum of the higher degree, and as its minimum half of that maximum.
The proportional fine — common in public-health offences, in economic crimes and in property offences — follows a different module: its amount is fixed in proportion to the value of the object of the offence or the benefit obtained. Article 368.2 CP illustrates this mechanism in drug-trafficking cases. The question resolved by the Plenary is whether, on a degree reduction, that fine is set according to the base offence or is also degraded.
Scope of the reduction: all penalties of the offence
The Supreme Court's answer is unequivocal: the degree reduction operates across all penalties attached to the offence. Separating the proportional fine from that operation has no systematic basis. If the reduction reflects a lower level of culpability or circumstances justifying a more lenient approach, that same reason extends to all the punitive consequences of the act, including the fine.
The practical criterion is clear: the maximum of the proportional fine after a degree reduction equals the maximum that would apply if the prison term were imposed at that lower degree. The court cannot dissociate the two operations without creating an internal inconsistency in the judgment.
Relevance for the defence
This doctrine has direct value in the defence strategy in cases where the penalty includes a proportional fine. The defence must claim the correct application of the degree reduction not only in respect of the prison term but also in respect of the fine, both at the final pleadings stage and, if the trial court omits it, by way of a cassation appeal on a point of law under Article 849.1 of the LECrim.
The relevant cassation ground is the incorrect application of the sentencing rules — Articles 66, 68 and 70 CP — read together with the provision establishing the proportional fine and with the Plenary Agreement of 2008. Since the error is one of law on untouchable proven facts, the Article 849.1 LECrim route is the appropriate one, and the Supreme Court can correct the penalty directly without remitting the case.
When this rule applies
The doctrine applies when three conditions are met: the offence carries a proportional fine alongside a custodial penalty; the court has reduced the sentence by one or more degrees on any legal ground — highly qualified mitigating factor, attempt, complicity, and so on; and the trial court has not degraded the fine in the same proportion. In all those cases the defence has solid grounds to raise the error on appeal.
The ruling, which addresses a point in sentence calculation that is often overlooked, brings legal certainty and closes the door to an asymmetric application of the sentencing rules: if the degree comes down for the prison term, it comes down for the fine too.
Frequently asked questions
What does the Supreme Court say about the fine when a sentence is reduced by one degree?expand_more
The Chamber holds that a degree reduction must extend to all the penalties attached to the offence, including proportional fines. It relies on analogy in bonam partem and on the Plenary Agreement of 22 July 2008. If the prison term is reduced upon applying a mitigating factor that allows a degree reduction, the proportional fine undergoes the same degradation, with the maximum capped at the level corresponding to the new, lower degree.
Which articles of the Criminal Code govern degree reductions and proportional fines?expand_more
Degree reductions are regulated mainly in Articles 66 and 68 of the CP, which provide for the penalty one or two degrees lower when highly qualified mitigating factors or other circumstances apply. Proportional fines appear, among others, in Article 368.2 CP for public-health offences, and Article 70 CP sets out how the penalty is reduced when moving to a lower degree. The Plenary doctrine integrates these provisions systematically.
Does this doctrine apply only to drug offences or to other crimes too?expand_more
Although the ruling that establishes the doctrine is handed down in a public-health (drug) case, its basis — analogy in bonam partem and a systematic reading of the sentencing rules — is of general application. Any offence carrying a proportional fine alongside a custodial penalty can benefit from the same rule whenever a degree reduction is warranted.
What if the court reduces the prison term but not the proportional fine?expand_more
If the court applies the degree reduction to the prison term but leaves the proportional fine at the original level, the judgment is inconsistent with Supreme Court doctrine. The defence may challenge that error by way of a cassation appeal on a point of law under Article 849.1 of the LECrim, invoking the incorrect application of the sentencing rules and the Plenary Agreement of 2008.
gavelDo you need criminal defense in this area?
We are criminal defense lawyers specializing in drug trafficking (art. 368 cp). We act urgently to protect your rights.
Case law discussed
Reducing a sentence by one degree also reduces the proportional fine
This analysis discusses a ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court. You can see its summary and full citation on our case-law page.
balanceView the ruling· Appeal 5588/2023arrow_forward