{"id":21667,"date":"2020-03-30T16:55:15","date_gmt":"2020-03-30T14:55:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/fines-increase-due-to-the-new-restrictions-under-the-state-of-alarm\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T15:04:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T13:04:52","slug":"fines-increase-due-to-the-new-restrictions-under-the-state-of-alarm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/fines-increase-due-to-the-new-restrictions-under-the-state-of-alarm\/","title":{"rendered":"Fines increase due to the new restrictions under the State of Alarm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

IMPORTANT:<\/strong> This article analyzes penalties related to the state of emergency declared in March 2020, in accordance with the regulatory, administrative, and penalty framework in effect at the time of its publication. Currently, any issue regarding penalties imposed during the state of emergency, mobility restrictions, civil disobedience, public safety, or public health must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with current case law and Constitutional Court Ruling 148\/2021, dated July 14<\/strong><\/a>, the Royal Decree 463\/2020, of March 14<\/strong><\/a>, the Organic Law 4\/1981, of June 1<\/strong><\/a>, and Organic Law 4\/2015 on the Protection of Public Safety<\/strong><\/a>, and Law 33\/2011, the General Public Health Law<\/strong><\/a> and, where applicable, Article 556 of the Penal Code<\/strong><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n\n

This post provides, for informational and historical purposes, an overview of the penalty system that was in effect during the first state of emergency<\/strong> declared in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 health crisis. Its content should be read in the context of the regulatory environment at the time of its publication and the restrictions in effect during that period. <\/p>\n\n

This article draws on a piece by our colleague Sara Dom\u00ednguez Ramos<\/strong> about penalties related to the state of emergency restrictions, published in Estadio Deportivo<\/strong>. Read the full interview here<\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

Penalties During the State of Emergency: Criteria and Applicable Rules in 2020<\/h2>\n\n

The Government, through the Royal Decree 463\/2020, dated March 14<\/strong><\/a>, declared a state of emergency in Spain, pursuant to Organic Law 4\/1981, of June 1<\/strong><\/a>, on states of alarm, exception, and siege.<\/p>\n\n

During that period, exceptional restrictions on movement and activity were enacted, directly impacting citizens\u2019 daily lives, economic activity, and sectors that were particularly affected, such as sports, public entertainment, the hospitality industry, retail, and non-essential travel.<\/p>\n\n

The state of emergency regime allowed for the adoption of measures such as restricting the movement or presence of people and vehicles in certain locations and at certain times, conducting temporary searches, imposing mandatory personal services, temporarily taking over certain spaces or activities, and issuing orders necessary to ensure the supply of essential goods and services.<\/p>\n\n

New Restrictions and Limitations on Non-Essential Activities<\/h2>\n\n

One of the most significant measures adopted during that period was the requirement that workers in non-essential services remain at home on certain days, with the aim of reducing mobility and containing the spread of the coronavirus.<\/p>\n\n

The reduction in travel and the suspension of activities led to an increase in police checks, identity checks, warnings, and, subsequently, administrative penalties for alleged violations of the imposed restrictions.<\/p>\n\n

In the sports sector, activities, practices, competitions, and events were suspended, and it was decided to close sports-related facilities, such as soccer fields, sports centers, swimming pools, gyms, stadiums, and other similar venues.<\/p>\n\n

Impact of the State of Emergency on Sports<\/h2>\n\n

The suspension of sports competitions during the state of emergency affected national and international leagues, professional events, training sessions, and youth competitions. In that context, the suspension of La Liga and other European competitions, as well as the postponement of international sporting events, were also being analyzed. <\/p>\n\n

The situation had historic implications, as the health crisis led to the suspension or postponement of major sporting events, including the Tokyo Olympics, which were ultimately rescheduled for 2021.<\/p>\n\n

In this context, participating in sports outside the permitted circumstances or traveling without a valid reason to engage in physical activity could result in inspections, complaints, and possible penalties, depending on the specific conduct and the applicable regulation.<\/p>\n\n

Penalty System During the State of Emergency<\/h2>\n\n

Article 20 of Royal Decree 463\/2020 addressed the penalty system and established that failure to comply with or resistance to orders issued by the competent authorities during the state of alarm would be penalized in accordance with the law, under the terms set forth in Article 10 of Organic Law 4\/1981.<\/p>\n\n

In practice, during those months, various regulations were invoked to support disciplinary proceedings, particularly in the areas of public safety, public health, civil protection, and, in more serious cases, criminal law.<\/p>\n\n

Therefore, in the case of any penalty imposed during the state of emergency, it was necessary to review what specific conduct was alleged, which regulation was applied, which authority had taken action, what evidence was included in the case file, and whether the decision was sufficiently substantiated.<\/p>\n\n

Organic Law 4\/2015 on the Protection of Public Safety<\/h2>\n\n

One of the laws enacted during the state of emergency was the Organic Law 4\/2015, of March 30, on the Protection of Public Safety<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

Among other types of conduct, this regulation covers violations related to disobedience or resistance to authority or its agents in the performance of their duties, when such acts do not constitute a crime, as well as the refusal to provide identification or the provision of false or inaccurate information during identification procedures.<\/p>\n\n

It also covers violations related to the removal of barriers, caution tape, or other items placed by law enforcement agencies to mark security perimeters, provided that the conduct does not constitute a serious violation.<\/p>\n\n

General Public Health Act<\/h2>\n\n

The following law may also be applicable: Law 33\/2011, of October 4, the General Public Health Law<\/strong><\/a>, especially when the alleged conduct could pose a risk or cause harm to public health.<\/p>\n\n

This regulation addresses serious and very serious violations related to conduct or omissions that may pose a risk or cause harm to public health, as well as repeated failures to comply with instructions from the competent authority when such failures result in serious harm to health.<\/p>\n\n

Applying these regulations required an analysis of whether the specific facts could actually be classified under the corresponding offense and whether there was sufficient justification regarding the risk posed.<\/p>\n\n

National Civil Protection System Act<\/h2>\n\n

Another regulation mentioned during that period was Law 17\/2015, of July 9, on the National Civil Protection System<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

This law addresses violations related to failure to comply with orders, prohibitions, instructions, or requirements issued by the competent authorities or by members of emergency response and assistance services during a declared emergency.<\/p>\n\n

The severity of the violation could depend on how dangerous or significant the conduct was to the safety of people or property; therefore, each case had to be examined on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n\n

Possible criminal implications: serious disobedience<\/h2>\n\n

In the most serious cases, certain conduct could be analyzed from a criminal law perspective, especially when allegations were made of resistance or serious disobedience toward the authorities or their agents.<\/p>\n\n

Article Article 556 of the Penal Code<\/strong><\/a> punishes resistance to or serious disobedience of authority or its agents in the performance of their duties, as well as certain acts of disrespect or lack of consideration toward authority.<\/p>\n\n

However, the application of criminal law requires a particularly rigorous assessment of the facts, the nature of the conduct, police actions, the existence of a prior order, and the degree of resistance or disobedience alleged.<\/p>\n\n

Fines and Penalties for Violating Restrictions<\/h2>\n\n

During the state of emergency, going out in public without a valid reason, violating mobility restrictions, or failing to comply with orders from the authorities could result in administrative penalties, the amount of which varied depending on the applicable regulation and the severity attributed to the conduct.<\/p>\n\n

In the early days of the state of emergency, law enforcement agencies frequently stopped people to check their identification and issued verbal warnings. Later, as restrictions were tightened, the number of complaints and penalties for alleged violations of mobility restrictions increased. <\/p>\n\n

In any case, the imposition of a penalty could not be considered automatic. The Administration was required to process the case in accordance with due process, identify the alleged facts, correctly apply the penalty regulations, and provide a rationale for its decision. <\/p>\n\n

Subsequent Review of Sanctions Imposed Under the State of Emergency<\/h2>\n\n

The subsequent review of many penalties imposed during the first state of emergency was particularly influenced by the Constitutional Court Ruling No. 148\/2021, dated July 14<\/strong><\/a>, which declared certain sections of Article 7 of Royal Decree 463\/2020 unconstitutional and null and void.<\/p>\n\n

Therefore, any disciplinary proceeding related to mobility restrictions during that period must be analyzed with particular caution. The viability of a claim, appeal, refund, or review depends on the status of the case file, whether the penalty was final, whether it was paid, the regulation applied, and the specific circumstances of the case. <\/p>\n\n

It is also important to review the notifications received, the arguments raised, the appeals filed, the penalty decision, and the deadlines for taking action.<\/p>\n\n

Legal Defense Against Administrative Penalties<\/h2>\n\n

Defending against an administrative penalty requires analyzing the entire case file. It is not enough to simply review the amount of the fine: it is necessary to examine the complaint, the alleged facts, the applicable regulation, the existing evidence, the reasoning behind the decision, and whether procedural safeguards were respected. <\/p>\n\n

Furthermore, with regard to penalties related to the state of emergency, the impact of subsequent case law and rulings issued after the health crisis must be assessed, especially when the penalty was based on mobility restrictions that were affected by subsequent rulings.<\/p>\n\n

At IN DIEM Abogados<\/strong>, we recommend reviewing each case individually before deciding whether to file a brief, lodge an appeal, request a refund, or consider any extraordinary means of review.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n