{"id":21633,"date":"2019-07-07T16:43:52","date_gmt":"2019-07-07T14:43:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/constitutional-court-compensation-in-the-event-of-acquittal-or-dismissal-of-a-person-in-pretrial-detention-art-294-1-lopj\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T15:04:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T13:04:24","slug":"constitutional-court-compensation-in-the-event-of-acquittal-or-dismissal-of-a-person-in-pretrial-detention-art-294-1-lopj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/constitutional-court-compensation-in-the-event-of-acquittal-or-dismissal-of-a-person-in-pretrial-detention-art-294-1-lopj\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Court: Compensation in the event of acquittal or dismissal of a person in pretrial detention. Art. 294.1 LOPJ"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Constitutional Court has upheld by majority the internal question of unconstitutionality regarding sections of Art. 294.1 LOPJ, incorporating the doctrine established by the European Court of Human Rights and previous rulings of the Constitutional Court itself.<\/p>\n\n

The final wording of Article 294.1 of the LOPJ is as follows:<\/p>\n\n

\u201cThose who, after having been held in pretrial detention, are acquitted or have had a dismissal order issued, shall be entitled to compensation, provided that damages have been incurred.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Considering that pretrial detention always entails damages, it could be argued that in the event of acquittal or dismissal, the right to compensation should always apply.<\/p>\n\n

Notwithstanding the above, the Constitutional Court notes:<\/p>\n\n

\u201cThe criteria and scope of the compensation provided for in Article 294.1 of the LOPJ must be defined through legislative action, if any, and, in the absence thereof, through interpretations consistent with its purpose and the general theory of civil liability, as provided by the Administration and, ultimately, by the judicial bodies.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

\u201cThe legal principle established by this ruling not only respects the broad scope for legislative discretion or judicial interpretation regarding the amount of compensation, but also does not preclude the conclusion that, in this specific case, there is no right to compensation under the criteria of general tort law.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

This declaration of unconstitutionality is effective only with respect to new cases or to administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings in which a final decision has not yet been rendered; therefore, \u201cit does not allow for the review of closed cases or the reopening of the deadlines for filing claims for compensation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n