Drink-Driving Limits 2026: What Was Rejected and What Still Applies

During the first months of 2026 a mistaken idea spread widely: that the drink-driving limit had been cut to 0.2 grams of alcohol per litre of blood and that, in practice, you could no longer have a single beer before driving. The reality is different. The Spanish Congress of Deputies rejected that reform on 18 March 2026, so the lower limit never came into force and the thresholds that apply today are exactly the same as before the vote. In this article we explain what was voted on and rejected, which administrative limits and which criminal threshold are actually in force, when driving after drinking is a crime even below the legal reading, and why so many websites reported a reform that was never passed. If you are facing drink-driving proceedings, you should start from the correct figures.

What was voted on 18 March 2026 — and rejected

The initiative sought to amend the traffic legislation to lower the general administrative limit from 0.5 to 0.2 grams of alcohol per litre of blood, with its equivalent in exhaled air, effectively aligning every driver with the level currently reserved for novice and professional drivers. On 18 March 2026 the plenary session of Congress voted the reform down, with PP, Vox and ERC voting against.

The legal consequence is straightforward: a rejected reform produces no effect whatsoever. It was never published in the Official State Gazette (BOE), never entered into force and did not change a single comma of the traffic regulations or of the Spanish Criminal Code (CP). Anyone who reads today that "the new 0.2 limit already applies" is reading outdated or simply wrong information.

The administrative limits that remain in force

At the administrative level — fines and licence points, with no criminal record — the limits remain as they have been:

Driver	Exhaled air	Blood
General	0.25 mg/l	0.5 g/l
Novice and professional	0.15 mg/l	0.3 g/l

Exceeding these limits without reaching the criminal threshold is an administrative infringement: it is punished with a fine and the deduction of licence points, but it does not create a criminal record and does not go before a criminal court, unless the circumstances we examine below are present. Keeping this boundary in mind matters, because much of the 2026 confusion stems from mixing up the administrative level (the limit that was meant to be lowered and was not) with the criminal level (which nobody has touched).

The criminal threshold: Article 379.2 of the Spanish Criminal Code

The offence of driving under the influence of alcohol is set out in Article 379.2 CP, which punishes driving a motor vehicle or moped under the influence of toxic drugs, narcotics, psychotropic substances or alcoholic beverages, and adds that the same penalties will be imposed in every case on anyone who drives with a breath-alcohol reading above 0.60 milligrams per litre or a blood-alcohol level above 1.2 grams per litre.

That "in every case" is decisive: from 0.60 mg/l in exhaled air or 1.2 g/l in blood upwards, the law treats the driving as criminal without any need to prove that the alcohol affected how the vehicle was being driven. The penalties are those of Article 379 CP: imprisonment of three to six months, or a fine of six to twelve months, or community service of thirty-one to ninety days and, in every case, disqualification from driving motor vehicles and mopeds for more than one year and up to four years. Where the driving ban imposed exceeds two years, the conviction also entails the loss of validity of the driving licence. This criminal threshold has not changed: the rejected reform concerned the administrative limit, not the Criminal Code, although many published summaries blurred the two.

When drink-driving is a crime below the 0.60 reading

The opposite mistake is also common: assuming that below 0.60 mg/l there can never be a criminal offence. That is not the case. Article 379.2 CP contains two alternative routes: driving with a reading above 0.60 mg/l (an offence triggered automatically by the figure) and driving "under the influence" of alcohol or drugs, which requires no minimum reading. The settled case law of the Spanish Supreme Court requires the prosecution to prove two elements for this second route:

• Prior consumption, normally established by the breath test itself, even where the result is below 0.60 mg/l.
• Actual impairment of the driving: external signs described by the officers (slurred speech, smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, bloodshot eyes), erratic manoeuvres, drifting into the opposite lane, zigzag driving, or an accident with no reasonable alternative explanation.

In practice, a reading between 0.25 and 0.60 mg/l usually stays within the administrative file; but where the police report documents clear signs and objectively abnormal driving, the Public Prosecutor can bring criminal charges below the threshold. The reverse is also true: a police report that is thin on signs of impairment is a significant line of defence. Bear in mind, too, that refusing to take the tests is a separate offence under Article 383 CP, punished with six months to one year in prison and disqualification from driving for more than one and up to four years: refusal is never a way out. You can read more on our page about refusing a breathalyzer test.

Where the confusion came from: an announced reform is not a law

Why did so many websites, videos and posts treat the lower limit as a done deal? Because they confused the stages of the parliamentary procedure with final approval. A legislative initiative can be announced, registered, taken into consideration and even advance through committee, and still fall in a later vote — which is exactly what happened here. Until a rule is finally passed, published in the BOE and in force, nothing changes for drivers.

For months, articles ran under headlines such as "new 2026 alcohol limit", presenting the 0.2 g/l threshold as current or imminent, and many of those pieces are still online today, never updated after the vote of 18 March. Our advice is always the same: whenever you read about penalties, limits or reforms, check the legal source. If there is no law published in the BOE, there is no change. We apply the same rule to other reforms still in progress, such as the draft new Criminal Procedure Act: announced and under parliamentary consideration, but not in force.

What this means if you are under investigation for drink-driving

For anyone facing a positive breath test or a fast-track trial today, the rejection of the reform has one clear practical consequence: your case is governed by the long-standing thresholds. That opens up the usual lines of defence, which our firm examines before any guilty plea:

• The exact figure matters: hundredths of a milligram separate the "automatic" offence (above 0.60 mg/l) from a mere administrative infringement. The breathalyzer's margin of error and its calibration can bring the proven reading below the criminal threshold, as we explain in our analysis of the margin of error as a defence.
• In the "under the influence" route, the signs are the evidence: if the police report does not describe impaired driving, the prosecution case weakens.
• Procedural safeguards (second measurement, information about your rights, the option of a contrast blood test) condition the validity of the evidence.

At Alonso Sala Abogados we defend these proceedings — from the roadside checkpoint to the fast-track trial — studying each police report before deciding between a negotiated plea and a contested trial. You can visit our page on road safety offences or our guide to the fast-track drink-driving trial timeline.