Criminal Lawyers for Family Coercion

Family Coercion: Concept, Modalities and Penalties (Art. 172 CP)

The offence of coercion typified in Art. 172 CP is one of the most frequent in couple crises, family conflicts and family real-estate disputes. It protects the legal interest of personal freedom of action —the faculty to act according to one's will without being compelled by third parties— and is configured as a result-based offence consisting of preventing another from doing what the law does not prohibit or compelling them to do what they do not want, just or unjust, through physical violence or intimidation. Supreme Court case-law has consolidated three essential typical elements: the restrictive conduct on another's freedom, the use of serious violence or intimidation and the causal relation between force and restrictive result, together with intent to constrain another's will.

The methods of commission in the family sphere are extraordinarily varied and case-law has consolidated extensive catalogues. Real-estate coercion includes unilateral lock change at the common home, cut-off of basic supplies (electricity, water, gas, internet), blocking access to shared rooms, imposing schedules for use of common areas and destruction or retention of personal items. Physical coercion covers bodily interposition at access points, momentary retention, gripping the arm to prevent exit, blocking doors. Intimidating coercion operates through conditional threats ("if you don't sign, you won't see the children"), display of weapons or dangerous objects, showing physical superiority. Coercion through interposed person instrumentalises relatives, friends or service personnel to pressure the victim.

The penalties are graduated according to the seriousness of the means used and the victim. The basic offence of Art. 172.1 CP punishes serious coercion with 6 months to 3 years' prison or 12 to 24 months' fine; when coercion is exercised to impede the exercise of a fundamental right (freedom of expression, assembly, religion), the penalty is applied in its upper half. Coercion in gender violence under Art. 172.2 CP, exercised against wife or ex-partner woman of the male aggressor, carries 6 months to 1 year prison or 31 to 80 days community service with deprivation of the right to bear arms. Minor coercion under Art. 172.3 CP is sanctioned with 1 to 3 months' fine, constituting a minor offence. Accessory penalties include prohibitions of approach and communication up to 5 years, suspension of parental authority and deprivation of the right to bear arms.

The technical defense in family coercion articulates four axes consolidated by case-law. First, insufficient coercive intensity: the Supreme Court demands violence or intimidation with objective capacity to bend the will of an average person; heated arguments, shouting, door slams or emotional pressure typical of family conflicts do not necessarily integrate the offence. Second, the legitimate exercise of a right under Art. 20.7 CP: the owner or rights-holder may exercise dominical or use faculties provided they do not incur in factual ways; case-law has excluded typicity when proving that the victim had voluntarily abandoned the home before the lock change. Third, absence of intent: cut-off of supplies due to non-payment of bills attributable to the contracting holder, or lock change due to lost keys, do not constitute coercion when there is no will to constrain. Fourth, the priority of the civil route: in possession or home use conflicts, the criminal response must yield to eviction proceedings or civil measures when these are sufficient.

In current forensic practice, family coercion proceedings have multiplied linked to several typical scenarios: conflictual de facto separations where one party seeks to accelerate the other's exit through factual means; conflicts between siblings over use of the family home after parents' death; disputes with tenants linked by family relationship (free assignments to relatives); and, increasingly, "real-estate harassment" situations linked to divorce processes. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency has reinforced coordination between criminal and civil jurisdictions, allowing activation of home-reentry precautionary measures upon proven real-estate coercion. Recent Supreme Court case-law modulates the application of the offence according to specific family context. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we articulate defence strategies adapted both for those defending a legitimate possessory position and for victims suffering factual ways, always ensuring the most effective procedural response: urgent precautionary measures, criminal complaint, criminal lawsuit, civil measures modification or personation as private prosecution.

Family Coercion Charges

Our criminal defense focuses on challenging the intensity of the coercion and proving the absence of intent or the legitimate exercise of a right, always seeking acquittal or dismissal of the case.

Gender Violence vs Domestic Violence

The legal classification changes depending on who the victim is:

• Against the wife/female partner: Art. 172.2 applies, with prison terms of 6 months to 1 year (gender violence).
• Against the husband or another relative: Art. 172.2 applies as domestic violence, also carrying a prison sentence.
• If minor: It may proceed under Art. 172.3 (minor offence) where there is no serious physical violence, but it still requires a trial.