Criminal Lawyers in Administrative Prevarication

Administrative prevarication typified in Art. 404 CP is one of the paradigmatic offences against Public Administration. It sanctions the authority or public official who, knowing its injustice, issues an arbitrary resolution in an administrative matter. The protected legal interest is triple: the correct functioning of Public Administration under the principles of objectivity and service to general interests (Art. 103 of the Constitution), the respect for legality in the exercise of administrative power, and the institutional trust of citizens. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has developed an extensive doctrinal body on the typical elements: condition of authority or public official, issuance of administrative resolution, manifest arbitrariness, and specific intent (knowingly of the injustice).

The concept of "arbitrariness" is the core of the offence and demands qualified analysis. Supreme Court case-law distinguishes between three levels: (i) the legal resolution, adjusted to the applicable regulations; (ii) the illegal resolution, voidable in administrative or contentious-administrative procedure for debatable interpretation or technical errors; and (iii) the arbitrary resolution, which lacks all reasonable legal justification, palpably contradicts the applicable regulations and can only be explained by the official's capricious will or particular interest. Only this last integrates the offence of Art. 404 CP. The methods of commission are diverse: urban planning licenses granted against planning, public procurement violating Act 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts (illegal fractioning, directed specifications, awards to linked persons), appointments to trust positions without legal selective process, budget modifications without normative coverage, and administrative resolutions that ignore binding technical reports.

The penalties are specific. Art. 404 CP imposes special disqualification from public employment or office and from the exercise of the right to passive suffrage for 9 to 15 years. The penological singularity is that it does not carry prison in its basic modality, but the disqualification is particularly severe due to its prolonged duration and because it directly affects the professional and political career of the convicted: impossibility of holding any public employment or position (General State Administration, regional, local, autonomous bodies, public companies) and of being eligible in electoral processes during a period that may reach 15 years. Concurrence with other offences is frequent and raises the severity: bribery of Art. 419 CP when gift or promise concurs (3 to 6 years prison), influence peddling of Art. 428 CP, embezzlement of Art. 432 CP (prison up to 12 years), or fraud and illegal exactions. Civil liability ex delicto reaches the indemnification for patrimonial damages caused to the harmed administration or to affected third parties.

The technical defense in administrative prevarication is built on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the reasonable interpretative discrepancy: when the resolution is based on a defensible although minority legal interpretation, on contradictory technical reports or on divergent case-law, the manifest arbitrariness required by the offence does not concur; specialised legal expert evidence proving interpretative plurality may be decisive. Second, the existence of favourable technical reports: when the resolution is based on mandatory or facultative reports that endorsed the decision, the prevaricator intent (knowingly of the injustice) fails; the reasonable trust of the decision-maker in their technicians operates as exculpatory element. Third, the delegation or assumption of foreign reports: management decisions adopted following mandatory reports from technical services without signs of irregularity exclude the responsibility of the decision-maker. Fourth, the error of prohibition of Art. 14.3 CP when reasonable mistaken belief about the legality of the action concurs.

In current forensic practice, administrative prevarication proceedings concentrate on five typical scenarios: urban planning licenses granted against planning, public contract awards violating the principles of publicity and free competition, appointments to trust positions evading the selective process, budget modifications or subsidies without normative coverage, and disciplinary or sanctioning resolutions violating the legally established procedure. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Act 39/2015 on the Common Administrative Procedure, Act 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector, Act 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts and consolidated Supreme Court and Contentious-Administrative Chamber case-law configure the normative framework. The popular action of Art. 125 of the Constitution allows any citizen to prosecute prevarication. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we undertake specialised technical defence of accused authorities and public officials, articulating exhaustive analysis of the administrative file, specialised legal expert evidence, technical expert evidence according to the matter (urban planning, public procurement, public function) and, where appropriate, representation of individual victims as private prosecution.