CUTTING OFF UTILITIES TO SQUATTERS IS NOT A CRIME: THE SUPREME COURT’S DOCTRINE

The owner of an illegally occupied property may cancel or stop paying the electricity, water or gas without, as a general rule, committing the offence of coercion. This is the doctrine set by the Full Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court in judgment 426/2026 of 24 June, which ends years of contradictory decisions across the country’s Provincial Courts. But the doctrine has a decisive caveat — the occupant’s possessory title — that changes everything, and that owners need to understand before acting.

What the Supreme Court has decided

On 24 June 2026, the Full Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court issued judgment 426/2026, ending years of contradictory decisions across the Provincial Courts: an owner who cancels or stops paying the water, electricity or gas of an illegally occupied property does not, as a general rule, commit the offence of coercion (art. 172 of the Criminal Code). The ruling was passed by ten votes to four, with the President of the Chamber, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, as reporting judge.

The Chamber’s three arguments

The doctrine rests on three pillars. The first is strict criminal typicality: the offence of coercion requires acting “without authorisation”, and the holder of the utility contracts can hardly be said to be acting without authorisation when managing their own contracts. The second is structural: the legal order cannot make the owner an economic guarantor of the person who has unlawfully occupied their property. The third invokes unjust enrichment: financing the utilities of an unlawful occupant would effectively mean that the occupation came with free electricity and water as a bonus, at the legitimate owner’s expense.

The caveat that cannot be ignored: possessory title

The doctrine has a precise boundary, and this is where the real value of the judgment lies. The Supreme Court states it clearly: the key is the legitimacy of the occupant’s possession. Where the occupant has no title whatsoever — having entered without right and without consent — cutting off utilities is not a criminal offence. Where the occupant does hold some possessory title, even one under dispute, the rules change completely.

The judgment arose not from squatting, but from a divorce

The case that gave rise to the ruling illustrates this well. It was not a squatting case; it was a divorce. A man cancelled the electricity contract for the family home while his wife continued to live there, having the right to do so during the divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction for coercion — a nine-month prison sentence — because the wife held a possessory title and there was an open judicial procedure to decide who could use the family home. The husband jumped ahead of the judge. That, in the Supreme Court’s view, is coercion.

Can I cut off the utilities? It depends on the case

The Catalan precedent: Barcelona Provincial Court (March 2025)

The Supreme Court’s judgment consolidates and elevates to binding national doctrine a criterion that the Barcelona Provincial Court had already formalised in its unified sentencing criteria, agreed by its criminal divisions on 7 March 2025. Those criteria established that an owner who stops paying utilities during an unlawful occupation commits no offence, and prohibited the provisional dismissal of an occupation proceeding without first ordering the security forces to carry out identification steps (art. 641.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The Supreme Court generalises the first criterion; the second remains a particularly relevant practical reference for property owners in Catalonia.

Four dissenting magistrates

The ruling was not unanimous. Magistrates Antonio del Moral García, Eduardo de Porres Ortiz de Urbina, Leopoldo Puente Segura and Javier Hernández García filed a dissenting opinion arguing that cancelling an electricity contract does not amount to the force against property (vis in rebus) that Article 172 of the Criminal Code requires, and that the appeal should have been upheld in full. Their underlying concern: extending the coercion offence to family-law disputes risks drawing the criminal courts into matters better handled through civil channels.

Frequently asked questions

Is it a crime to cut off a squatter’s electricity?

As a general rule, no, if the squatter entered the property with no title and no consent. According to STS 426/2026, the owner is not obliged to finance the utilities of someone who has unlawfully occupied their property, and cancelling them is not an offence of coercion. The exception is where the occupant holds some possessory title.

Can I cut off utilities to a tenant who doesn’t pay?

No. A tenant with a lease holds possessory title, even in arrears. Cutting off their electricity, water or gas to force them out would indeed be an offence of coercion. The correct route against a defaulting tenant is eviction, not disconnection of utilities.

What is possessory title and why does it matter so much?

It is any right that supports the occupation of the property: a lease, a recognised right of use, or even a disputed but existing title. It is the element that determines whether cutting off utilities is an offence: with no title, it is not; with a title, even one under dispute, it is.

Is it enough to stop paying, or must I cancel the contract?

The judgment covers both conducts — cancelling or stopping payment — in respect of someone with no title. In any case, before acting it is advisable to document the occupation and verify that the occupant holds no possessory title, so as not to incur criminal liability.

Does this doctrine apply in Catalonia?

Yes. The Supreme Court’s doctrine applies nationally. In addition, Catalonia already had a prior criterion from the Barcelona Provincial Court (March 2025) along the same lines, which remains a relevant practical reference, particularly regarding the steps to identify the occupants.

Can I act on my own without a lawyer?

It is not advisable. The line between lawful conduct and the offence of coercion depends on the specific possessory situation, which is not always obvious. A mistaken reading can turn the owner into the author of an offence. It is best to verify the legal situation of the property before cancelling any utility.

Conclusion

Although this is the only judgment handed down to date on this matter, it is clearly formulated and others along the same lines are likely to follow and consolidate the doctrine. The rule is clear: when the occupant lacks any title — having entered without right or consent — cutting off utilities is not an offence. When the occupant holds some possessory title, even one under dispute, the rules change completely. For the owner, the practical conclusion is twofold: the judgment provides a legitimate tool against squatting, but it requires verifying the situation carefully before using it.