Criminal Lawyers in Defamation
Defense of your honor and reputation. Criminal actions against serious defamation.
Last updated:
Defamation: Concept, Modalities and Penalties (Arts. 205-216 CP)
The offences against honour regulated in Arts. 205 to 216 CP protect the legal interest of personal dignity in its double dimension: subjective honour (the person's own self-esteem) and objective honour (social consideration, fame, reputation). The Criminal Code distinguishes two main figures: calumny of Art. 205, consisting of the imputation of a crime made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless contempt for the truth, and insult of Art. 208, comprising any action or expression damaging another person's dignity by undermining their fame or attacking their own esteem. Minor insults were decriminalised by the 2015 Criminal Code reform, redirected to the civil route, except when exercised in the field of gender or domestic violence. Supreme Court and Constitutional Court case-law has consolidated a doctrinal body on the border with freedom of expression.
The typical elements of calumny are three: (i) the imputation of a specific crime with sufficient determination (generic attribution of criminality is not enough); (ii) the falsity of the imputation, assessed by objective criteria; and (iii) the calumnious intent, integrated by knowledge of falsity or reckless contempt for the truth (which case-law equates to eventual intent). Insult requires the concurrence of an offensive act or expression damaging dignity or attacking own esteem, with specific animus injuriandi to disparage; serious insults consist of objectively vexatious imputations, expressions or actions; mere harsh criticism, political criticism, satire and opinions are protected by freedom of expression of Art. 20 of the Constitution provided they do not degenerate into gratuitous vexatious insult.
The penalties are graduated according to the entity of the wrong. Calumny with publicity (Art. 206 CP) —disseminated in media, social media, press or any broad dissemination medium— is sanctioned with 6 months to 2 years prison or 12 to 24 months' fine. Calumny without publicity is punished with 6 to 12 months' fine. Serious insult with publicity carries 6 to 14 months' fine; without publicity, 3 to 7 months. Insults and calumnies directed at the Crown, the Cortes Generales, the Government or the Armed Forces (Arts. 490, 496, 504 CP) integrate specific types with aggravated penalties. Civil liability ex delicto covers the publication of the conviction at the convict's expense (Art. 216 CP), the public rectification in conditions equivalent to the original dissemination, and compensation for moral damages that may reach significant figures according to case-law.
The technical defense in honour offences is built on four consolidated axes. First, the exceptio veritatis of Art. 207 CP: the accused of calumny shall be exempt from all penalty if they prove the criminal fact imputed; it is the classic and absolute defence, articulated through documentary, testimonial and expert evidence proving the truthfulness of the attributed offence. Second, the protection of freedom of expression and information of Art. 20 of the Constitution: consolidated constitutional doctrine demands that criticism overcome the "double test" of truthfulness (truthful information although ultimately inaccurate when reasonable professional criteria were applied) and public relevance of the matter; public officials and notorious figures must tolerate greater criticism than private individuals. Third, the absence of animus injuriandi: when the expression responds to animus narrandi (informing), criticandi (criticising), defendendi (defending) or jocandi (humour) without specific purpose to offend, intent fails. Fourth, the retraction prior to trial of Art. 215.3 CP as a highly qualified mitigator, which may reach exemption from penalty if conciliation with the offended party concurs.
In current forensic practice, calumny and insult proceedings concentrate on four typical scenarios: social media defamation (Twitter/X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) with viral diffusion; false or vexatious reviews on opinion platforms (Google Maps, TripAdvisor, Trustpilot) affecting companies and professionals; media attacks on public figures in television programmes, radio or press; and organised discrediting campaigns in competitive business or political contexts. The private offence nature of calumnies and insults must be recalled: it requires complaint by the offended party under Art. 215 CP and, in the case of non-serious insults, prior conciliation act; the Public Prosecutor does not act ex officio except in qualified cases (authorities, Crown). The prescription is short: 1 year for insults, 4 years for serious calumnies, which demands urgent procedural action. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Organic Law 1/1982 on civil protection of the right to honour and consolidated Constitutional Court case-law on the balance between honour and freedom of expression orient the procedural response. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we undertake both the technical defence of those accused of calumnies or insults and the representation of the victim as private prosecution, articulating digital expertise to identify anonymous authors, precautionary measures of content removal and full claim for moral damages.
Crimes Against Honour in Spain: Defamation, Slander and Insult — Defence Guide
Crimes against honour — calumny (false attribution of a crime) and insult (discrediting expressions) — are regulated in Articles 205-216 of the Criminal Code. They are private-prosecution offences, meaning the victim must file the complaint and sustain the prosecution. The balance between honour and freedom of expression is the central battleground in these cases.
Penalty Table: Honour Crimes
| Offence | Article | Description | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calumny (public) | Art. 206 | Falsely accusing someone of a crime via public media | Fine 6-24 months |
| Calumny (private) | Art. 205 | Falsely accusing privately | Fine 6-12 months |
| Serious insult (public) | Art. 209 | Clearly discrediting statements via public media | Fine 6-14 months |
| Serious insult (private) | Art. 208 | Clearly discrediting private statements | Fine 3-7 months |
| Disclosure of intimate images (Art. 197.7) | Art. 197.7 | Non-consensual sharing of intimate images | 3 months – 1 year |
Key Defence Strategies
Freedom of Expression and Truth Exception
Calumny is excluded if the attributed crime is proven to be true (exceptio veritatis Art. 207). For insults, the defence of truth only applies if the offended party is a public authority or holds public office.
Opinion vs Attribution of Facts
Only attributions of concrete, specific and verifiable facts can constitute calumny or insult. Value judgments, criticism and opinions — even harsh ones — are covered by freedom of expression. The key distinction is between fact and opinion.
Legitimate Criticism of Public Figures
Politicians, artists and others in public life must tolerate a higher degree of criticism. Statements made in the context of political or democratic debate cannot be prosecuted unless manifestly gratuitous and unrelated to public activity.
Anonymous Authorship Challenge
If the author of online posts cannot be positively identified as the accused, the attribution of authorship must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. IP addresses alone may be insufficient if shared connections are involved.
Key Case Law
The Constitutional Court reaffirms that freedom of expression does not protect statements that are merely offensive and lack any connection to matters of general interest. Gratuitous insults on social media do not fall within the protected area of Arts. 20.1.a and 20.1.d CE.
The threshold between protected criticism and criminal insult requires assessing: (1) whether the target is a public or private figure, (2) whether the statement relates to their public activity, and (3) whether the expression, even if offensive, has informational value.
The Court clarifies that Art. 197.7 CP requires that the images were obtained with the victim's consent (e.g., within a relationship) and that disclosure was without consent. Images obtained covertly may constitute a different offence (Art. 197.1 CP).
FAQs
Depends on severity and if in a group. Usually they are Minor Insults, which are decriminalized (except in domestic violence), and go via civil court.
Yes, it is freedom of speech, provided the criticism is truthful, proportional, and does not use unnecessary vexatious insults ('animus injuriandi').
We can request urgent precautionary measures for removal in 24-48h if the damage is flagrant.
The false attribution of a crime made in the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Art. 205 CP. If the attributed crime is proven true, there is no calumnia.
With publicity: 6 months to 2 years in prison or a fine of 6 to 24 months. Without publicity: a fine of 6 to 12 months.
Publication on social media or digital media is considered calumnia with publicity, which raises the penalty. Mass dissemination on the internet aggravates the harm.
Yes. The 'exceptio veritatis' (proof of truth) is an absolute defense to calumnia. If you prove the attributed crime is true, you are exempt from liability.
Calumnia falsely attributes a crime; injuria (insult) offends a person's dignity without attributing a specific crime. Calumnia carries heavier penalties.
If you attribute a specific crime (theft) knowing it is false, it is calumnia. If it is a generic insult without attributing specific facts, it is injuria.
Yes. Journalists and media outlets that publish false attributions of crimes can be convicted of calumnia. The right to information does not cover falsely attributing crimes.
Compensation depends on the dissemination, the seriousness of the attribution, the damage to honor and reputation, and the suffering caused. It can reach thousands of euros.
No. It is a private offence requiring a private prosecution (querella) by the offended party. The Public Prosecutor cannot act ex officio. The offended party must bring the criminal action personally.
Yes. A public retraction made before trial can mitigate the penalty and the compensation. It is a show of good faith that courts view favorably.
No. A good-faith complaint is not calumnia even if it does not succeed. Only if the facts are shown to be false and the complainant knew it is there calumnia or a false accusation.
Yes, but the threshold is higher. Public officeholders must tolerate more criticism than private individuals. Falsely attributing specific crimes is still calumnia.
Pure opinions are not calumnia. But if an opinion includes the attribution of false facts amounting to a crime, it loses the protection of freedom of expression.
It becomes time-barred after one year (Art. 131.1 CP). It is a very short period, so it is essential to act quickly after learning of the defamatory attribution.
No. Reporting on a real acquittal is not calumnia. But altering the facts or presenting the acquittal as confirmation of guilt can be.
Yes. A calumnia prosecution (querella) requires a lawyer and a court agent (procurador) by law. A prior conciliation hearing before the Justice of the Peace or Court of First Instance is indispensable.
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.