Collaborators AreaHate crime
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Discriminatory motivation is an essential element for the criminal classification of the offense
The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed a conviction for hate crime considering that, in this case, there was indeed a clear discriminatory intention and sufficient to fit the facts into art. 510 CP.
Everything happened in a bar, following a rather everyday argument, the accused was claiming one euro that he believed had not been returned correctly by a vending machine. From there, the conflict escalated, the accused began to launch racist and discriminatory insults against the bar owner, including expressions like “shitty black” , and even went as far as to threaten him with death . The situation was so serious that he even did it in front of police officers . According to the account, he also had an object that simulated being a weapon and made intimidating gestures , which ultimately led to his arrest and the victim's complaint.
The Valencia Provincial Court had already convicted him of a hate crime, and the accused appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court upholds the conviction and explains why: for the Supreme Court, it was not just a random insult "in the heat of the moment," but rather an attack on the dignity of the victim based on his race, skin color, and immigrant or "non-Spanish" status , implying discriminatory treatment . The Supreme Court insists that in a democratic State, there is no room for attacks based on being "different," and that these types of expressions seek to place the other person as if they were of an "inferior category." Additionally, it also confirms a conviction for minor threats .
Our lawyers provide the appropriate advice and can defend your case in situations like the one describedCONTENIDO RELACIONADO
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
-
Gender violence
Illegal detention and attempted homicide
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.