Can you cut off the utilities to a squatter in Spain? The Supreme Court answers: cancelling the electricity is a criminal offence (Judgment 426/2026 of 24 June)

The Full Bench of the Spanish Supreme Court equates cancelling an electricity contract with cutting the cables: it is violence within the offence of coercion. Only against an occupier with no title at all does it open a door, and even then in a non-binding obiter dictum. We analyse Judgment 426/2026 from the official text, correct the figures being reported wrongly, explain the four-judge dissent and set out the protocol and checklist an owner must follow before touching a utility contract.

Published 7 September 2026 · Bufete Padilla · Criminal and Property Law · Torrevieja, Elche and Moraira

It is the question British, German, Dutch and Scandinavian owners ask us most often when they discover that someone is living in their Costa Blanca property without permission: "can I simply cut off the electricity and water and wait for them to leave?". For years the answer depended on which provincial appeal court you happened to fall under. The Full Bench of the Second Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court has now settled it in Judgment 426/2026 of 24 June (appeal 2514/2025), and the short answer is uncomfortable but clear: cutting off utilities is, as a general rule, the criminal offence of coercion (coacciones); and only against an occupier who holds no title whatsoever — a squatter in the strict sense — does the Supreme Court open a door, and even then it does so in an *obiter dictum*, with no binding force.

This article analyses the ruling from the official text (ROJ: STS 2963/2026 · ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2963 · reporting judge Andrés Martínez Arrieta), corrects several figures being reported incorrectly online, explains the dissenting opinion of four judges and — most importantly for you — sets out the exact protocol we apply in the firm before allowing a client to cancel a utility contract.

> 30-second summary. The Supreme Court's Full Bench equates cancelling the electricity contract in order to force an eviction with cutting the cables: it is *vis in rebus*, the violence required by article 172 of the Criminal Code. A nine-month prison sentence was upheld against a husband who cancelled the electricity supply to the family home where his wife and children still lived. In a non-binding paragraph (*obiter dictum*), the Court states that the position is not comparable where the person affected holds no title at all — a squatter under article 245.2 — on grounds of atypicality, inexigibility of other conduct and the prohibition of unjust enrichment. Four judges signed a dissent. Practical conclusion: never cut off supplies to a defaulting tenant, a tolerated occupier or a relative; against a pure squatter, only after documenting the total absence of title, and knowing that article 455 (arbitrary enforcement of one's own right) remains in play.

1. The case: a family home, a marital breakdown and a cancelled contract

The facts are deliberately domestic, and that is precisely why the ruling matters: the Supreme Court decides a family-breakdown case, not a squatting case, but takes the opportunity to lay down doctrine on both.

A man who was the formal holder of the electricity contract for the family home left the property during the breakdown of the relationship. His wife and children stayed. Without prior notice and without offering any alternative, he cancelled the contract with the supplier, leaving the home without power. His purpose, held proven, was twofold: to force them out and to improve his negotiating position in the pending family proceedings.

The procedural route was as follows:

  1. Criminal Court no. 3 of Vigo: conviction for coercion under article 172.2, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Criminal Code, with nine months' imprisonment and a restraining and no-contact order for one year and ten months.
  2. Pontevedra Provincial Court, Fourth Section, judgment 74/2025 of 4 April: conviction upheld.
  3. Supreme Court, Full Bench of the Second Chamber, judgment 426/2026 of 24 June: appeal dismissed, with a dissenting opinion by four judges.

Correcting three figures being reported incorrectly

Having read the full text on the official CENDOJ database and compared it with the summaries circulating online, three errors are worth correcting because they go to the substance:

| Reported | Actual official text |
|---|---|
| Restraining order of one year and three months | One year and ten months |
| Conviction under "articles 172.2 and 3" | Article 172.2, paragraphs 1 and 3. Paragraph 3 is the aggravated sub-type within 172.2 itself (upper half of the range where the offence is committed in the shared home or the victim's home). It is not article 172.3, which is the residual minor coercion offence |
| Origin of the proceedings not identified | Criminal Court no. 3 of Vigo → Pontevedra Provincial Court (4th Section) 74/2025 → cassation |