The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark ruling for the defence of criminal offences against road safety. In its ruling STS No. 850/2025 of 16 October, the Second Chamber establishes that a person who drives a vehicle after having served a full sentence of deprivation of their driving licence does not commit a crime, even if they have not passed the road safety awareness and re-education course required by administrative regulations.
This ruling puts an end to expansive interpretations of criminal law and has a direct impact on proceedings for breach of sentence and driving without a licence.
The defendant had been sentenced to a driving disqualification of more than two years, a sentence that had been fully served. Some time later, he was caught driving without having completed or passed the road safety awareness course provided for in Article 73 of the Traffic Act.
The Criminal Court convicted him of the offence of breach of sentence (Art. 468 of the Criminal Code). However, the Provincial Court of Barcelona overturned the conviction and acquitted him, a decision which the Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed.
The Supreme Court focuses the debate on a very specific question, but one that is common in legal practice:
Is it a criminal offence to drive after serving a driving ban if you have not passed the road safety awareness and re-education course?
The Chamber analyses all possible criminal classifications:
– Offence against road safety under Article 384 of the Criminal Code (loss of points)
– Offence under Article 384 of the Criminal Code (judicial deprivation of licence)
– Offence of breach of sentence (Art. 468 of the Criminal Code)
The Court’s response is clear and unequivocal: the conduct is atypical and cannot be criminally punished.
The main arguments are as follows:
1. The awareness course is not a punishment.
The Court recalls that the road safety awareness and re-education course is not part of the criminal conviction. It is an administrative requirement, not a penalty provided for in the Criminal Code.
2. There is no breach of sentence.
For the offence under Article 468 of the Criminal Code to exist, it is essential that a sentence or measure imposed by the court has not been complied with. As the obligation to take the course is not part of the sentence, there can be no question of a breach.
3. Nor does it fall under Article 384 of the Criminal Code.
The Court also dismisses the offence against road safety because:
– There is no loss of points.
– The deprivation of the permit had already been fulfilled.
– There is no precautionary or definitive deprivation in force at the time of driving.
By strictly applying the principle of legality, the Supreme Court rejects any broad interpretation of criminal law.
| Permit status at the time of driving | Awareness course conducted | Legal consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Current judicial deprivation | Irrelevant | Offence (art. 384 CP) |
| Judicial deprivation served | No | It is not a crime (STS 850/2025) |
| Judicial deprivation served | Yes | Lawful driving |
| Total loss of points | Irrelevant | Offence (art. 384 CP) |
| Precautionary deprivation in force | Irrelevant | Offence (art. 384 CP) |
| Administrative non-compliance only | No | Administrative penalty |
The ruling highlights a distinction that is essential to the defence:
– Driving without having passed the course may result in administrative penalties.
– However, it cannot give rise to criminal liability in the absence of an express legal provision.
The Court goes so far as to state that, if this conduct were to be criminally punished, legislative reform would be necessary, something that does not exist today.
This ruling is particularly relevant in proceedings concerning:
From a defensive perspective, STS 850/2025 reinforces a key idea:
👉 Criminal law cannot be used as a supplementary sanctioning mechanism for administrative proceedings.
The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark ruling for the defence of criminal offences against road safety. In its ruling STS No. 850/2025 of 16 October, the Second Chamber establishes that a person who drives a vehicle after having served a full sentence of deprivation of their driving licence does not commit a crime, […]
Read more
In an increasingly demanding criminal law environment, where specialisation makes the difference between a generic defence and an effective defence, Joaquín has established himself as a criminal lawyer, with a career focused on cases of greater legal complexity and social sensitivity. His professional practice is characterised by rigorous, strategic and deeply technical defence, always aimed […]
Read more
The offence of sexual assault constitutes one of the most serious crimes against sexual freedom and is characterised by a high level of legal and evidentiary complexity. Its regulation has undergone significant reforms in recent years, which requires up-to-date technical knowledge of both the Criminal Code and the case law of the Supreme Court and […]
Read more
