Criminal conformidad (a defendant's negotiated agreement to accept the charges and the proposed sentence, broadly equivalent to a guilty-plea agreement) after the 2025 reform

Summary: Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures for the efficiency of the Public Justice Service (BOE-A-2025-76) has reorganized the regulation of the criminal conformidad in the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (LECrim, Spain's Criminal Procedure Act). The former Article 787 is now split into three provisions (787, 787 bis and 787 ter), the hearing of the victim before accepting the conformidad is reinforced, and the institute is connected with the new restorative justice framework. Article 801, which governs conformidad in urgent proceedings (diligencias urgentes), automatically inherits this regime through its express reference to Article 787. And when that conformidad was given without truly understanding what was being accepted — for example, owing to a defective interpretation — Supreme Court case law confirms that the correct avenue is not an application for review, but the special incident of nullity of proceedings under Art. 241 of the LOPJ (Organic Law on the Judiciary).

Which law amended the conformidad regime in 2025?

Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures for the efficiency of the Public Justice Service. This is the same statute that reorganizes the courts into Tribunales de Instancia (Courts of First Instance) and that introduces the MASC (Adequate Means of Dispute Resolution) as a procedural requirement in civil proceedings; its impact on the LECrim centers on the conformidad, restorative justice, and the generalization of remote appearances by telematic means (new Art. 258 bis).

Which specific articles have changed?

How can a conformidad judgment under Article 801 be challenged?

The key lies in Art. 787 ter.7, applicable to conformidad agreements reached under Art. 801 by reference:

"Únicamente serán recurribles las sentencias de conformidad cuando no hayan respetado los requisitos o términos de la conformidad, sin que la persona acusada pueda impugnar por razones de fondo su conformidad libremente prestada." (Conformidad judgments may only be appealed where they have failed to respect the requirements or terms of the conformidad, and the accused may not challenge on the merits a conformidad that was freely given.)

When the judgment's finality was already declared orally at the same on-duty hearing (acto de guardia), and a defect subsequently emerges affecting the very validity of the consent — the typical case being a defective interpreter assistance that prevents it from being shown that the conformidad was given "freely and with knowledge of its consequences" (Art. 787 ter.2) — the correct avenue is the exceptional incident of nullity of proceedings, regulated under Art. 241.1 of the LOPJ:

"No se admitirán con carácter general incidentes de nulidad de actuaciones. Sin embargo, excepcionalmente, quienes sean parte legítima o hubieran debido serlo podrán pedir por escrito que se declare la nulidad de actuaciones fundada en cualquier vulneración de un derecho fundamental de los referidos en el artículo 53.2 de la Constitución, siempre que no haya podido denunciarse antes de recaer resolución que ponga fin al proceso y siempre que dicha resolución no sea susceptible de recurso ordinario ni extraordinario." (As a general rule, incidents of nullity of proceedings will not be admitted. Exceptionally, however, a legitimate party — or anyone who should have been one — may request in writing that proceedings be declared null on the basis of any violation of a fundamental right referred to in Article 53.2 of the Constitution, provided that it could not have been raised before the decision concluding the proceedings was issued, and provided that decision is not open to an ordinary or extraordinary appeal.)

"Será competente para conocer de este incidente el mismo juzgado o tribunal que dictó la resolución que hubiere adquirido firmeza. El plazo para pedir la nulidad será de 20 días, desde la notificación de la resolución o, en todo caso, desde que se tuvo conocimiento del defecto causante de indefensión, sin que, en este último caso, pueda solicitarse la nulidad de actuaciones después de transcurridos cinco años desde la notificación de la resolución." (Jurisdiction over this incident lies with the same court or tribunal that issued the decision that became final. The time limit to request nullity is 20 days from notification of the decision or, in any event, from the moment the defect causing a denial of a fair hearing became known — save that, in this latter case, nullity of proceedings may not be requested after five years have elapsed since notification of the decision.)

Art. 241.1 LOPJ

The Supreme Court confirms it: nullity of proceedings, not review, is the correct avenue

This is not an isolated doctrinal interpretation. The Supreme Court has said so in almost literal terms in a case with the same factual pattern:

ATS 1409/2024, Criminal Chamber, 1 February 2024 (Roj: ATS 1409/2024 — ECLI:ES:TS:2024:1409A, rapporteur Javier Hernández García)

A person convicted by a conformidad judgment issued in urgent proceedings (Investigating Court No. 4 of Algeciras, Fast-Track Trial 151/2023) sought authorization for an application for review, alleging that he "gave his conformidad to the facts, the legal classification, and the sentence sought by the Public Prosecutor without having a German-language interpreter and without knowing Spanish." The Supreme Court denied the review and stated expressly:

"En el presente caso, el recurrente disponía, frente a la vulneración de la garantía constitucional que se describe, de varias vías correctoras el incidente de nulidad de actuaciones y, en su caso, el recurso de amparo, sin que conste que las activara, resultando la vía de la revisión que se pretende abrir improcedente por carecer de fundamento causal." (In the present case, faced with the violation of the constitutional guarantee described, the appellant had several corrective avenues available — the incident of nullity of proceedings and, where applicable, the recurso de amparo (an extraordinary constitutional appeal for the protection of fundamental rights, brought before the Constitutional Court) — without it being shown that he activated them, so that the avenue of review he seeks to open is inadmissible for lack of causal basis.)

ATS 1409/2024, sole legal ground

This is the exact confirmation that, faced with an interpreter-related defect that vitiates consent in a conformidad under Art. 801, the avenue reserved by statute and case law is the incident of nullity of proceedings (and, subsidiarily, the recurso de amparo) — not an application for review.

ATS 281/2026, Criminal Chamber, 15 January 2026 (Roj: ATS 281/2026 — ECLI:ES:TS:2026:281A, rapporteur Manuel Marchena Gómez)

It confirms the same logic with an almost identical pattern: an English-speaking Australian national, convicted by conformidad in a fast-track trial (Art. 801) for sexual assault, alleged that neither the indictment nor the judgment had been translated for him and that interpreter assistance had not extended to the judicial hearing. The Supreme Court likewise denied review here, recalling that Art. 787.7 LECrim requires respect for the "requirements and terms of the conformidad" and that "an application for review has no room for regretting a conformidad that was given." It serves as a warning of what not to do: attempting to proceed by review instead of by nullity of proceedings exposes the applicant to almost automatic rejection.

ATS 13014/2019, Criminal Chamber, 14 November 2019 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:13014A, rapporteur Julián Sánchez Melgar)

Ruling on a cassation appeal, it recalls the historical origin of this rule: even before Organic Law 15/2003 introduced the current subsection 7 into Art. 787, the Supreme Court already allowed a conformidad to be appealed "where a defect of consent is alleged that renders the conformidad ineffective" (citing the Supreme Court judgments of 23 October 1975 and 8 February 1984). In other words: the defect of informed consent is not a new construction, but the historical foundation on which the exception to appealability now codified in Art. 787 ter.7 rests.

STC 205/2009, of 23 November

Granting the recurso de amparo for failure to respect the terms of a conformidad (a conviction to a sentence higher than the one agreed), it further confirms that exhaustion of the prior judicial remedies before the amparo requires use of the incident of nullity under Art. 241 of the LOPJ.

STC 55/2015, of 16 March

It provides a nuance that must be handled with rigor when drafting the application: a procedural or documentation defect only gives rise to nullity when it produces a real and effective denial of a fair hearing (indefensión), not a merely formal one. This means that, in the incident of nullity, it is not enough to point out that there is no record of the signature or of informed consent; it must be shown that the defect truly prevented the accused from understanding what he or she was accepting.

Frequently asked questions

Can a conformidad judgment under Art. 801 be appealed simply because the accused disagrees with the sentence?

No. Art. 787 ter.7 excludes challenges on the merits where the conformidad was freely given.

What happens if the conformidad judgment was already declared final at the same on-duty hearing?

The ordinary route of appeal is no longer available. If the defect affects a fundamental right — for example, an interpretation defect that vitiates the accused's freedom or awareness — the incident of nullity of proceedings under Art. 241 of the LOPJ is the appropriate avenue.

Is it correct to try to annul a conformidad vitiated by the lack of an interpreter through an application for review?

No, and the Supreme Court has said so expressly in ATS 1409/2024: faced with that defect, the "corrective avenues" are the incident of nullity of proceedings and, where applicable, the recurso de amparo — not review, which is reserved for facts or evidence that come to light after conviction bearing on guilt, not for defects in the consent given at the time.

Is it enough to allege that the accused's signature is missing from the conformidad record?

Not on its own. Under STC 55/2015, it is necessary to prove a real and effective denial of a fair hearing — that the defect (of interpretation, translation, or information) truly prevented the accused from understanding and freely consenting, not merely to point out a formal irregularity in the documentation of the proceeding.