Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator: Their Interpretation by the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law

  • 409 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this contribution is to study the material limits on the criminal legislator set forth in the Spanish Constitution and in the European Convention of Human Rights, as interpreted by the Spanish Constitutional Court (SCC) and by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Former Law Clerk at the Spanish Constitutional Court (1999–2003; 2005–2008), Professor of Constitutional Law at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ferrajoli (2007), p. 567.

  2. 2.

    Prieto Sanchís (2011), p. 31.

  3. 3.

    The article stated: “The law should establish only penalties that are strictly and evidently necessary. (…)”.

  4. 4.

    This definition, in line with McCormick’s, is from Bustos Gisbert (2012), p. 21.

  5. 5.

    Huerta Tocildo (2000), p. 513; Ruiz Robledo (2003), pp. 61 and ff.

  6. 6.

    Mir Puig (2011), p. 71.

  7. 7.

    Ferrajoli (1993).

  8. 8.

    Silva Sánchez (1999), Rodríguez Montañés (2009).

  9. 9.

    Mir Puig (2011), p. 13.

  10. 10.

    Tiedemann (1991), p. 157.

  11. 11.

    Prieto Sanchís (2009), p. 288.

  12. 12.

    Lopera Mesa (2006), p. 562; Díez-Ripollés (2005), p. 84; Rodríguez Mourullo (2002), p. 76; González Beilfus (2003), p. 65; Ferreres Comella (2012), p. 115; Rodríguez Montañés (2012), p. 59.

  13. 13.

    This is the conclusion of the excellent study of constitutional case-law in criminal matters from Lascuraín Sánchez (2012), p. 23.

  14. 14.

    Lascuraín Sánchez (2012), pp. 22–23.

  15. 15.

    Bilbao Ubillos (2000), pp. 277–342.

  16. 16.

    Prieto Sanchís (2009), p. 293.

  17. 17.

    Urías Martínez (2001), p. 65.

  18. 18.

    Saiz Arnáiz (1999), p. 145.

  19. 19.

    Ruiz Miguel (1997), p. 41.

  20. 20.

    Queralt Jiménez (2008), p. 104.

  21. 21.

    Arzoz Santisteban (2014), p. 180.

  22. 22.

    Casadevall (2012), p.140.

  23. 23.

    Burgorgue-Larsen (2005), p. 324.

  24. 24.

    For example, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishments (Art. 15 CE). See Cuerda Riezu (2011) on life imprisonment. The topic has sprung into the news following the last reform of the Spanish Criminal Code in 2015, which has introduced the so-called “reviewable life sentence” for a series of very serious crimes (art. 92), which have been considered unconstitutional by numerous criminologists. See Arroyo Zapatero et al. (2016).

  25. 25.

    Carbonell Mateu (1996) maintained the validity, among others, of the “principle of excessive prohibition (or proportionality)” as a limit to legislative power (pp. 82–192). Mir Puig (2011) presented the principle of proportionality, the principle of culpability, the principle of humanity and the principle of rehabilitation as constitutional limits of ius puniendi in the social and democratic State subject to the rule of Law (p. 94).

  26. 26.

    The majority of authors who have dealt with the question coincide with this appraisal: Prieto Sanchís (2009), p. 285; Mir Puig, p. 96; Lopera Mesa (2006), p. 561; González Beilfus (2003), p. 49; Díez-Ripollés (2005), p. 83; Rodríguez Montañés (2012), p. 57; Rodríguez Mourullo (2002), p.73; Lascuraín Sánchez (2012), p. 15.

  27. 27.

    See Lopera Mesa (2006), pp. 569–570; Lascuraín Sánchez (2012), p. 16.

  28. 28.

    Lascuraín Sánchez (2014), p. 320. A difference stance was taken by Huerta Tocildo (2000), for whom “the necessary attitude of caution when delivering a judgement of proportionality on criminal norms is practically converted into the concession of a ‘open cheque’ to the criminal legislator to design criminal policy…”, p. 63.

  29. 29.

    Zagrebelsky (2005), p. 37.

  30. 30.

    An expression from German terminology, employed by Rodríguez Montañés (2009), p. 1657.

  31. 31.

    Lopera Mesa (2006), p. 571.

  32. 32.

    Tiedemann (1991), p. 165.

  33. 33.

    Burgorgue-Larsen (2005), p. 373.

  34. 34.

    Burgorgue-Larsen (2007).

  35. 35.

    Earlier, the Court had qualified the death penalty as “inhuman and degrading treatment” in ECtHR Judgement of 7 July 1989, c. Soering v. the United Kingdom.

  36. 36.

    According to Rey Martínez (2009), p. 75, art. 15 SC would not prevent Spain from ratifying the Convention, because it contains no obligation to foresee the death penalty in this circumstance, but only a permissible possibility that would be validly renounced in case of ratification of the Protocol, as Spain indeed did on 27 November 2009.

  37. 37.

    The majority made no pronouncement on the law that contemplates that penalty but on the form and the circumstances of its application: ECtHR Judgement of 25 October 1990, c. of Thynne, Wilson and Grunnel v. United Kingdom (by violation of art. 5.4 ECHR); ECtHR Judgement of 21 February 1996, c. Singh v United Kingdom, (art. 5.4 ECHR); ECthHR Judgement of 28 May 2002, c. Stafford v. the United Kingdom, (art. 5.1 ECHR); ECtHR Judgement of 16 December 1999, c. V. v. the United Kingdom (violation of art. 3 ECHR due to various factors, among others, the young age of criminal liability).

  38. 38.

    Burgorgue-Larsen (2005), p. 369.

  39. 39.

    On this point, I follow the work of Viganò (2012), p. 316.

  40. 40.

    Viganò (2012), p. 327.

References

  • Arroyo Zapatero L, Lascuraín Sánchez JA, Pérez Manzano M (eds) (2016) Contra la cadena perpetua. Ed. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca

    Google Scholar 

  • Arzoz Santisteban X (2014) La concretización y actualización de los derechos fundamentales. CEPC, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao Ubillos JM (2000) La excarcelación tenía un precio. El Tribunal enmienda la plana al legislador (Comentario a la STC 136/1999, en el caso Mesa Nacional de HB). Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 58:277–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgorgue-Larsen L (2005) La Corte Europea de los Derechos Humanos y el Derecho penal. Anuario de Derecho internacional 21:317–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgorgue-Larsen L (2007) Aspectos recientes de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Europea de los Derechos Humanos en asuntos penales. In: García Ramírez S, Islas de González Mariscal O (eds) Panorama internacional sobre justicia penal: proceso penal y justicia penal internacional. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, pp 351–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustos Gisbert R (2012) XV proposiciones generales para una teoría de los diálogos judiciales. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 95:13–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell Mateu JC (1996) Derecho penal: concepto y principios constitucionales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadevall J (2012) El Convenio europeo de Derechos Humanos, el Tribunal de Estrasburgo y su jurisprudencia. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuerda Riezu A (2011) La cadena perpetua y las penas muy largas de prisión (Por qué son inconstitucionales en España). Atelier, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Díez-Ripollés JL (2005) El control de constitucionalidad de las leyes penales. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 75:59–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrajoli L (1993) Derecho y razón. Teoría del garantismo penal. Trotta, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrajoli L (2007) Principia iuris. Teoria del diritto e della democracia. Laterza, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreres Comella V (2012) El control de las leyes penales por parte de los jueces ordinarios In: Mir Puig S, Corcoy Bidasolo M (eds) Constitución y sistema penal. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • González Beilfus M (2003) El principio de proporcionalidad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional. Aranzadi, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Huerta Tocildo S (2000) Principio de legalidad y normas sancionadoras In: El principio de legalidad. Actas de las V Jornadas de la Asociación de Letrados del Tribunal Constitucional. CEPC, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuraín Sánchez JA (2012) ¿Restrictivo o deferente? El control de la ley penal por parte del Tribunal Constitucional. InDret 3/2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuraín Sánchez JA (2014) Cuándo penar, cuánto penar. In: Lascuraín Sánchez JA, Rusconi M (eds) El principio de proporcionalidad penal. AdHoc, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopera Mesa GP (2006) Principio de proporcionalidad y ley penal. CEPC, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Mir Puig S (2011) Bases constitucionales del Derecho Penal. Iustel, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto Sanchís L (2009) Justicia y Derechos Constitucionales. Trotta, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto Sanchís L (2011) Garantismo y Derecho Penal. Iustel, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Queralt Jiménez A (2008) La interpretación de los derechos: del Tribunal de Estrasburgo al Tribunal Constitucional. CEPC, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey Martínez F (2009) La protección jurídica de la vida ante el Tribunal de Estrasburgo: un derecho en transformación y expansión. In: García Roca J, Santolaya P (coords), La Europa de los Derechos. CEPC, Madrid, pp 73–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Montañés T (2009) Expansión del Derecho Penal y límites constitucionales, In: Carbonell Mateu JC, González Cussac JL, Orts Berenger E (dirs) Constitución, derechos fundamentales y sistema penal (Semblanzas y estudios con motivo del setenta aniversario del profesor Tomás Salvador Vives Antón), vol 2. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Montañés T (2012) Libertad de expresión, discurso extremo y delito (Una aproximación desde la Constitución a las fronteras del derecho penal). Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Mourullo G (2002) Delito y pena en la jurisprudencia constitucional. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Miguel C (1997) La ejecución de las Sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Robledo A (2003) El derecho fundamental a la legalidad punitiva. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiz Arnáiz A (1999) La apertura constitucional al derecho internacional y europeo de los derechos humanos. El artículo 10.2 de la Constitución española. CGPJ, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva Sánchez JM (1999) La expansión del Derecho Penal. Aspectos de la política criminal en las sociedades postindustriales. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann K (1991) Constitución y Derecho Penal. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 33:145–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Urías Martínez J (2001) El valor constitucional del mandato de resocialización. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 63:43–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Viganò F (2012) Sobre las obligaciones de tutela penal de los derechos fundamentales en la jurisprudencia del TEDH. In: Mir Puig S, Corcoy Bidasolo (eds) Garantías constitucionales y Derecho penal europeo. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 311–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagrebelsky G (2005) El derecho dúctil. Ley, derechos, justicia, 6th edn. Trotta, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus UAB, 08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain

    Enric Fossas Espadaler

Authors
  1. Enric Fossas Espadaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enric Fossas Espadaler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Pérez Manzano

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Antonio Lascuraín Sánchez

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Marina Mínguez Rosique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fossas Espadaler, E. (2018). Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator: Their Interpretation by the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In: Pérez Manzano, M., Lascuraín Sánchez, J., Mínguez Rosique, M. (eds) Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63864-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63865-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation