For years, many owners faced a difficult paradox to explain: they had occupied their homes and, above all, continued to pay for the water and light consumed by the occupants. And if the supplies were to be dropped, they would risk being charged with a crime of coercion. The Supreme Court has ordered a judgment that establishes doctrine. But be careful: is not a general permit to cut supplies, and understanding the nuance is what avoids getting into a criminal problem.
What the Supreme has decided
In his Judgment 426 / 2026 of 24 Junethe plenary of the Criminal Chamber provides that to leave or stop paying for the supplies of an illegally occupied housing does not, as a general rule, constitute an offence of coercion Article 172 of the Criminal Code.
The resolution, adopted by ten votes to four, Unifies the doctrine In view of the disparate criteria applied by the Provincial Audits: some considered that cutting supplies was a criminal constraint; others, that the owner could not be forced to continue paying them.
The Supreme offers three arguments that operate on different planes:
- No guarantor position. The order cannot make the owner an economic guarantor of the person who occupies his house without right. No one is obliged to finance the basic services of those who have usurped a good.
- Unfair enrichment. Maintaining the active supply would add, to illicit occupation, the free enjoyment of services at the expense of the legitimate owner.
- Criminal character. As a result, the conduct does not, as a general rule, fit into the offence of coercion when the occupant has no title.
The decisive nuance: depends on who occupies the housing
Here's the key that many headlines jump. The answer is not dependent on who the owner is, but on whether or not the person in the house has a title that legitimizes his possession.
- Occupant without any title (usurpation): the cut or drop of supplies is not, as a general rule, an offence of coercion.
- Person with a legitimate, apparent or discussed title (a tenant, an exonym with the right to use, a possessive conflict): the situation changes completely. There, cut the supply can be a crime of coercionespecially if it is used as a weapon to force the abandonment of the house.
A revealing fact: the case that led to the judgment was not an okupation. It was a marriage crisis in which one of the spouses, the holder of the electricity contract, discharged him while the other continued to live in the family home with the right to remain there. In that particular case, with a legitimate possession of the conduct by means, it was indeed reproachable. The Court took advantage of the case to trace the border.
What a owner should consider before acting
The judgment provides legal certainty, but should not be read as an automatic authorisation. Before dismissing any supply it is appropriate to verify:
- If there is or has been a lease.
- If the occupant has some title that legitimize your stay.
- If there is a judicial decision on the use of housing.
- Who figures as contract holder supply.
- If there is a judicial proceedings Let's go.
The golden rule: an owner should not attempt to resolve through the supply cut-off a conflict that is in fact a matter of judicial resolution.
One point: the sentence was not unanimous
We should know, because the debate is not completely closed. Four of the fourteen judges of the plenary voted in particular in which they expressed their concern about what they call a «progressive dematerialization of the concept of violence» in the crime of coercion. It is a sign that matter remains sensitive and that each case should be assessed with caution.
Frequently asked questions
Can I cut the light off an okupa without committing a crime? According to STS 426 / 2026, if the occupant lacks any title that legitimizes his possession, dismisses or fails to pay the supplies, it is not, as a general rule, an offence of coercion.
What if the person has a lease? Not in that case. In the face of a tenant or any person with a legitimate, apparent or discussed title, cutting off the supply may constitute an offence of coercion.
Does the sentence force me to something or does it give me an automatic right? Not one thing or the other: it establishes criminal doctrine, but each situation depends on its circumstances. The case should be examined before action is taken.
Should I go to a lawyer before I cut the supplies? It's highly recommended. A misqualification on the title of the occupant can turn the court into a crime.
This article is informative and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the STS 426 / 2026 doctrine depends on the specific circumstances of each case, especially the title of the occupant. In LEYNVER we advise owners affected by illegal occupation and by possessive conflicts in Barcelona and throughout Catalonia. Before cutting any supply, contact us to assess your situation.
