Constitutional Court Criminal Case Law

Cited on the general criminal defence page, together with judgments 199/2003 and 23/2018, as the basis of the presumption of innocence, the right against self-incrimination, legal assistance and the right to a process with full guarantees.

Together with judgments 30/1981 and 23/2018, it forms the Constitutional Court doctrine on the basic safeguards of the person under investigation.

Part, with judgments 30/1981 and 199/2003, of the body of constitutional doctrine on the presumption of innocence and the right of defence.

Cited on the tax crimes page: the exclusionary rule of Article 11.1 LOPJ does not apply automatically when the information reaches the proceedings through a private party unconnected to the State investigation.

Canon of circumstantial evidence: the indicia must be “fully proven”, because certainties cannot be built “on the basis of mere probabilities”.

Together with judgment 174/1985 of the same date, it requires the ruling to set out both the indicia and the reasoning that leads from them to authorship.

Hammered home that indicia cannot be “mere suspicions”.

With judgment 133/2014, it draws the limit at an inference so open that it admits a plurality of alternative conclusions: none of them can then be taken as proven.

The presumption of innocence is breached where the circumstantial reasoning is “excessively open, weak or indeterminate”.

With judgment 189/1998, it sets the review of the sufficiency of the inference in circumstantial evidence.

On the exceptional character of arrest and its restrictive interpretation.

With judgment 207/1996, it articulates the threefold test of suitability, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense for interferences with fundamental rights.

Distilled the constitutionally legitimate purposes of pre-trial detention, later enacted in Article 503 LECrim.

With judgment 66/1995, it completes the proportionality test applicable to interferences with fundamental rights.

Referred the internal question of unconstitutionality on Articles 503-504 LECrim concerning pre-trial detention.

The reference on the lawfulness of recordings made by one of the parties to the conversation.

Cited for the reflex effect of void wiretaps on derivative evidence (Article 11.1 LOPJ).

Consolidated the right to informational self-determination.

Decisive against phone tapping ordered with boilerplate reasoning.

Doctrine on the constitutional protection of the content of personal computers.

Extended to the examination of mobile phone content the requirement of reasoning and judicial authorisation.

Workplace video surveillance announced by a notice: prior information is what makes the recording usable as evidence.

With judgments 11/2000 and 79/2014, it supports the case-by-case balancing between the right to honour and the freedoms of expression and information.

Together with judgments 105/1990 and 79/2014, it forms the balancing test between honour and the freedoms of Article 20.1 of the Constitution.

Part, with judgments 105/1990 and 11/2000, of the doctrine balancing honour against freedom of expression and information.

Constitutional doctrine on the right to be forgotten in the digital environment.

Cited together with judgment 58/2018 in the doctrine on the digital right to be forgotten.

Upholds a conviction for slander with publicity against someone who posted information damaging to honour on a social network without using any prior source of verification.

Doctrine on negationism, along the line that separates protected speech from incitement to hatred.

Doctrine on radical discourse, within the same boundary between protected expression and incitement to hatred.

Doctrine on political freedom of expression, within that same boundary.

Dismissed the question of unconstitutionality on Article 153.1 CP after examining its proportionality and its compatibility with the principle of equality.

Annulled regional Act 13/2017 regulating cannabis consumer associations.

Upheld the complaint for lack of reasoning where a six-day ordinary leave permit was revoked on appeal; Article 25.2 of the Constitution creates no free-standing right to leave, but it does require the refusal to be reasoned.

Upheld the constitutionality of reviewable permanent imprisonment: periodic review and a real prospect of release make it compatible with the rehabilitative purpose of Article 25.2 of the Constitution.

Outlined the illustrative scenarios of special constitutional significance for the admission of an amparo appeal.

Declared unconstitutional the wording limiting compensation for pre-trial detention to cases where the alleged fact did not exist, for breaching equality and the presumption of innocence.

Confirmed that the LOREG provision is not unconstitutional, when interpreted in line with its legal ground 7.b).

Upheld the constitutionality of Article 172 quater CP, introduced by Organic Law 4/2022.