National Court (Audiencia Nacional) Lawyer

The Audiencia Nacional is a court with jurisdiction across the whole of Spain that concentrates the investigation and trial of the most serious and complex criminal offences. It is not a court of general jurisdiction: it hears a closed list of matters attributed to it by statute, ranging from international drug trafficking and organised crime to large-scale economic offences and international judicial cooperation. Defending a client before the Central Courts of Instruction and the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional calls for a very different kind of work from that of the ordinary courts, and we bring to it over fifteen years of experience in the criminal jurisdiction.

What the Audiencia Nacional Is and Why It Matters

The Audiencia Nacional was created to centralise, in a single court with nationwide reach, the handling of offences whose gravity, complexity or transnational dimension makes ordinary territorial venue unsuitable. Its structure includes the Central Courts of Instruction, which investigate the cases; the Central Criminal Courts and the Criminal Chamber, which try them; and an Appeals Chamber, which reviews the decisions handed down. Its judgments may in turn be challenged by way of cassation before the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The practical significance of this specialisation is considerable. Cases handled by the Audiencia Nacional are typically macro-proceedings: numerous defendants, separate strands of investigation, thousands of pages of case file, intercepted communications, controlled deliveries and evidence obtained abroad. A defence that is effective at this level must combine command of substantive criminal law with a detailed knowledge of the special procedural regime and of the mechanics of international cooperation.

Statutory Jurisdiction under Article 65 LOPJ

The jurisdiction of the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional is defined in Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ). In broad terms, and leaving aside the matters excluded from this page, it covers: offences against the Crown and the highest organs of the Nation; counterfeiting of currency and banknotes (Arts. 386 to 388 of the Criminal Code) and the manufacture of fraudulent means of payment where committed by organised groups; frauds and manipulations affecting the security of commercial dealings or the national economy that cause harm to a generality of persons; drug trafficking committed by organised bands or groups whose effects reach the areas of several provincial courts; and offences committed outside national territory whose trial falls to the Spanish courts under statute or international treaty.

It is precisely this statutory list that determines whether a case belongs before the Audiencia Nacional or before the ordinary courts. The question of jurisdiction is therefore one of the first battlegrounds of the defence: arguing that the facts do not meet the requirements of Article 65 LOPJ —because there is no organised group, or because the effects do not spread across several jurisdictions— may result in the case being remitted to the ordinary courts, with all the consequences that follow for the procedural regime and the applicable measures.

Extradition and International Judicial Cooperation

The Audiencia Nacional is the court that centralises passive extradition: the procedure by which Spain decides whether to surrender to another State a person claimed for prosecution or for the enforcement of a sentence. The proceedings are governed by Law 4/1985 on passive extradition and by the bilateral and multilateral treaties in force, and they unfold in a judicial phase before the Central Court of Instruction and the Criminal Chamber, followed by a governmental decision by the Council of Ministers.

Alongside extradition, the Audiencia Nacional processes the full range of international judicial cooperation instruments: European investigation orders, letters rogatory, the transfer of sentenced persons, and cooperation channelled through Eurojust, Europol and Interpol. The defence in these proceedings requires technical command of the applicable treaties and of the grounds for refusing surrender —among them the principle of double criminality, the speciality rule, the risk of a breach of fundamental rights, the ne bis in idem principle and the limitation of the offence— and a rigorous scrutiny of the documentation supporting the request.

The European Arrest Warrant

Within the European Union, extradition has been replaced, between Member States, by the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), a simplified surrender mechanism based on mutual recognition of judicial decisions and governed in Spain by Law 23/2014 on mutual recognition of criminal decisions in the European Union. The Central Courts of Instruction of the Audiencia Nacional are the executing authority for warrants received in Spain and the issuing authority for those directed abroad.

The EAW abolishes double criminality for a list of offences and shortens the time limits, but it does not remove the defence. The person claimed may raise the grounds for mandatory or optional non-execution provided by law: enforcement of the ne bis in idem principle, limitation of the offence under Spanish law where jurisdiction exists, the person's status as a minor, or, in the case of a national or resident, the possibility that any custodial sentence be served in Spain. There is also room to argue a real risk to fundamental rights on account of the conditions of detention in the issuing State. Early, well-documented opposition to the warrant is decisive, because the time limits are short and the surrender decision is difficult to reverse once made.

International Drug Trafficking (Arts. 368 to 370 CP)

Article 368 of the Criminal Code punishes acts of cultivation, production or trafficking in drugs, or otherwise promoting, favouring or facilitating their unlawful consumption, as well as their possession for those purposes. Where the trafficking is committed by an organised group whose effects reach the areas of several provincial courts, jurisdiction moves to the Audiencia Nacional. The response is aggravated by Article 369 CP —membership of an organisation, notorious importance of the quantity, use of minors, and similar circumstances— and by Article 370 CP, which raises the penalty by one or two degrees for the leaders of the organisation, the use of minors, and conduct of extreme gravity.

These proceedings usually rest on intercepted communications, geolocation, controlled deliveries and undercover agents. The defence works methodically on the lawfulness of these measures: whether the judicial authorisation of the interception is reasoned and proportionate, whether the chain of custody of the seized substance is unbroken, whether the analysis of purity and quantity is reliable, and whether the defendant's role within the organisation has genuinely been established or merely inferred. Challenging unlawfully obtained evidence, and the exclusionary effect it entails, is frequently the pivot of the whole case.

Organised Crime and Money Laundering (Arts. 570 bis, 301 CP)

Article 570 bis of the Criminal Code punishes those who promote, set up, organise, coordinate or direct a criminal organisation, and, with a lesser penalty, those who actively take part in it or cooperate with it. The offence is an autonomous one: it punishes membership of the structure independently of the specific offences committed through it, which raises complex issues of concurrence with the underlying offence that the defence must analyse case by case.

Organised structures are frequently prosecuted together with money laundering under Article 301 CP, which punishes the acquisition, possession, use, conversion or transfer of assets knowing that they derive from criminal activity, or any other act to conceal or disguise their unlawful origin. The defence here centres on the subjective element —knowledge of the illicit origin of the assets— and on the tracing of funds, an exercise that calls for coordination with forensic accountants and financial experts to dismantle the prosecution's tracing of the money.

Complex Economic Crime and Privileged Defendants

The Audiencia Nacional also hears large-scale economic offences —frauds and manipulations affecting the security of commercial dealings or the national economy and harming a generality of persons— which often take the form of macro-proceedings with corporate defendants, complex financial structures and cross-border ramifications. In these cases the defence is built around expert financial evidence, the reconstruction of the flows of funds and the precise delimitation of each defendant's individual responsibility, avoiding the objective attribution of liability that mere position within a company would entail.

Some of these proceedings concern privileged defendants (aforados) or persons of public standing, which adds a further layer of procedural and reputational complexity. The defence must combine strict technical rigour with careful management of exposure, safeguarding the presumption of innocence throughout an investigation that is frequently prolonged and closely followed. Coordination with corporate criminal compliance and, where a company is charged, activation of the exemption of Article 31 bis of the Criminal Code, form part of the overall strategy.

Procedural Particularities and Pre-Trial Detention

Proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional depart from the ordinary regime in several respects. The time limits for the investigation may be extended in complex cases under Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act; the secrecy of the proceedings is often prolonged owing to the complexity of the enquiry; the validity of evidence obtained abroad must be assessed against the guarantees of the requesting and requested States; and the regimes for the interception of communications and the protection of witnesses have their own specific rules.

The most sensitive point is usually pre-trial detention. Because of the gravity of the offences and the frequent transnational element, the courts tend to presume a risk of flight and order remand more readily. The defence must contest that presumption from the very first appearance: establishing roots in Spain, offering guarantees and alternative measures such as the surrender of a passport, appearances or bail, and challenging the reasoning of the detention order by way of appeal. The rights of the person detained under Article 520 of the Criminal Procedure Act —to be informed, to legal assistance and to an interpreter— must be respected in full, and any breach may be raised in the defendant's favour.

Defence Strategy before the Central Courts

An effective defence before the Audiencia Nacional rests on several pillars. First, a rigorous analysis of jurisdiction, to test whether the case truly meets the requirements of Article 65 LOPJ or should be remitted to the ordinary courts. Second, early intervention in the investigation, controlling the flow of a voluminous case file and contesting the investigative measures —interceptions, searches, remand— as they are ordered. Third, the critical challenge of the evidence, with particular attention to the lawfulness of intercepted communications and to the chain of custody. And fourth, thorough preparation of the trial in cases resting on complex evidence, coordinating expert witnesses and, where a transnational element is present, professionals in other countries.

Where the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Audiencia Nacional but before the ordinary courts, a different framework applies; you may find our page on defence before the criminal courts useful. Throughout the proceedings, and up to the stage of cassation before the Supreme Court, we work to ensure that the exceptional gravity of the offences within this court's remit never displaces the guarantees to which every defendant is entitled.