Gorostiza, J. M. L., & Framis, A. G. S. (2025), Judicial decisions on hate crimes in Spain: a case study from 2018 to 2022 (Las decisiones judiciales de delitos de odio en España: un estudio de casos de 2018 a 2022). InDret, (1), 297-330.

Country

Spain

Title

Gorostiza, J. M. L., & Framis, A. G. S. (2025), Judicial decisions on hate crimes in Spain: a case study from 2018 to 2022 (Las decisiones judiciales de delitos de odio en España: un estudio de casos de 2018 a 2022). InDret, (1), 297-330.

View full research

Year

2025

Publication type

Research evidence/report

Geographical coverage

National

Area/location of interest

Not applicable - national level

Type of Institution

Academic/research institution

Institution

Spain, InDret 1.2025

Thematic focus

Hate crime

Groups

General population

Key findings

A significant rise in hate crime instances based on gender, which accounted for 57.8% of the cases in an initial selection. Compared to 18.6% of crimes of aggravated acts (primarily injuries), the ratio of crimes of speech is 79.6%, with the vast majority of these cases involving article 510 of Criminal Code (61.6%). After the Criminal Code 2015 reform of article 510, the judicial system seems to be extremely focused on prosecuting behaviour of expression. Regarding the court data, it would also be prudent for the Attorney General's Office to employ a more thorough data gathering method with the designated prosecutors for hate crimes.

Methodology (Qualitative/Quantitative and exact type used, questionnaires etc)

Qualitative research

Sample details and representativeness

Judicial decisions on hate crimes in Spain dated from 2018 to 2022. Out of 2,400 court rulings supplied by the General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial, CGPJ) based on the CENDOJ repository of resolutions, 177 instances were chosen for the final sample of facts categorized as hate crimes because they satisfied the study's inclusion criteria and the facts prosecuted. The chosen judgment sample's representativeness was constrained as most of the rulings supplied were issued by collegiate bodies, which are required to submit all of their rulings. However, this does not preclude the Judicial Documentation Center (Centro de Documentación Judicial, CENDOJ) from receiving resolutions from single-person bodies.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.