Can You Cut Off Utilities to "Okupas"? Spain’s Supreme Court Sets Crucial Legal Boundary

Spain's Supreme Court has ruled that cutting off electricity or water to individuals illegally occupying a property does not constitute a crime. Concurrently, the plenary of the Criminal Chamber upheld a prison sentence for a man who used this exact tactic to try to force his wife out of their home during divorce proceedings.

The specific case reviewed by the court did not directly involve squatters (okupas). Instead, a man from Vigo had cut off the electricity without warning in the family home where his wife continued to reside after their separation, despite having paid the utility bills himself for nearly six months. The woman was left without power for several days and reported the incident to the police.

The court of first instance in Vigo sentenced the man to nine months in prison for coercion under Article 172.2 of the Penal Code. In addition to the prison term, the court banned him from carrying or owning weapons for two years, and ordered him to maintain a distance of at least 300 meters from his wife and avoid any contact with her for nearly two years.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but used the opportunity to establish a general legal principle for the future. In the judges' view, the critical distinction lies in the legal status of the person deprived of utilities. If the occupant has even a disputed but legitimate right to reside in the property (as is the case with a spouse during divorce proceedings), cutting off water or electricity without warning to force them out constitutes a criminal offense. However, if the individual has no legal right to the property whatsoever, such as a squatter who has illegally occupied it, cutting off utilities by the owner will not be prosecuted as a crime.

Prior to this landmark clarification, court rulings on the matter varied significantly across Spain. Provincial courts in Madrid, Barcelona, and the Balearic Islands had previously ruled that cutting off utilities was a crime regardless of the occupant's status, whereas courts in Valencia, Burgos, Granada, and Pontevedra held the opposite view. This legal discrepancy prompted the Supreme Court to take up the case, reviewing its own jurisprudence dating from 1948 to 2024.

The decision was not unanimous, as four of the fourteen plenary judges issued dissenting opinions. The dissenting judges argued that the majority interpreted the concept of "coercion" too broadly, noting that by this logic, cutting off the phone or internet in an ex-partner's home could also be treated as criminal coercion. They warned that this ruling risks excessive intervention by criminal law in domestic and civil disputes.