Spain occupies a unique position in Europe when it comes to the number of people with special legal protection, known as “Aforamientos” (immunities). With almost 250,000 beneficiaries, the country holds the European record, far exceeding countries like France with 19 or Italy with just one immunity. This system, which allows those affected to be tried by higher courts instead of ordinary courts, is increasingly at the center of public debate and sharp criticism, particularly in connection with high-profile corruption cases that are shaking Spanish politics.
The broad scope of immunities: Who benefits in Spain?
Immunity in Spain extends to a wide range of public figures. It is estimated that around 17,600 people in state and public institutions of the autonomous communities enjoy this special protection. These include approximately 2,000 politicians, around 5,500 judges, about 2,700 public prosecutors, as well as members of the Court of Accounts, the Council of State, and the Ombudsman. But the list is even longer: Over 232,000 members of the state security forces and corps, as well as the regional police, enjoy partial immunity. They are tried by the provincial courts for offenses committed in the exercise of their duties. Even five members of the royal family are immune, in addition to the King, who is considered inviolable.
In stark contrast, the numbers in other European countries are negligible. In France, only the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and the ministers enjoy immunity, which currently totals 19 people. In Italy, only the President of the Republic has this immunity. Portugal follows a similar logic: the President of the Republic is immune, and members of the Council of State have limited parliamentary immunity. Countries like Germany and the United Kingdom do not recognize immunity in this sense; here, all citizens, including politicians and high officials, are tried in ordinary courts. However, parliamentary protection mechanisms exist in many European countries: In Austria and Belgium, members of parliament cannot be tried for their parliamentary work, apart from disciplinary measures decided by their president. In Finland, this is possible, but requires a formal request to the legislature, similar to the immunity of members of parliament.
Immunity: Protection mechanism or shield?
Proponents of immunity defend it as a necessary measure to protect the independence of high officials and avoid political pressure on them. Critics, on the other hand, argue that this system undermines the equality of all citizens before the law and serves as a shield for the political class, making accountability difficult and hindering the fight against corruption.
These concerns are also reflected in international reports. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe has repeatedly called on Spain to reduce the number of people enjoying immunity, as this system impedes the functioning of justice. In its latest compliance report from April 2025, GRECO reiterated its concern about the lack of progress in reforming the Spanish immunity system. Although some autonomous communities have made changes, no significant measures have been taken at the central government level, which is of particular concern to GRECO. The lack of consensus for a constitutional revision is cited as justification. Although the European Union has not exerted pressure in this regard, Spanish judges and public prosecutors have warned Brussels about the dangers of immunity, attacks on the judiciary, and the use of the term “Lawfare” in political speeches. These three elements, which are present in Spain, can, in the opinion of these experts, convey an image of the “politicization” of justice.
Current debates and the call for reform
The debate on aforamientos has recently gained new relevance due to the case of Miguel Ángel Gallardo, the president of the Provincial Council of Badajoz. He was investigated for allegedly placing the brother of the head of government in a public office. Gallardo refused to waive his immunity, but prevailed against other colleagues and won a seat in the Extremadura Assembly. This allows him to be prosecuted before a higher court and avoid a possible conviction in an ordinary court. It was argued that the change, while depriving him of an appeal process, would buy him time in the short term by transferring the investigation and, in the event of an appeal against a hypothetical conviction, facilitate a faster arrival of Conde Pumpido before the Constitutional Court. Conde Pumpido has already been involved in controversial revisions, such as the exoneration of those convicted of corruption in the ERE case of the Andalusian PSOE.
This protection is being discussed again in Spain. Gallardo himself, after his maneuver, proposed abolishing the aforamientos, a demand that the PSOE already defended in 2018 for the “revitalization of democracy.” However, such reforms require a constitutional amendment, which entails a complex legislative process and a broad political consensus.
Conclusion and Outlook
The reform of the immunity system in Spain remains an open issue. Despite numerous proposals and growing social and international pressure to reduce the number of people enjoying immunity, the lack of political consensus and the hurdles of a constitutional amendment have so far prevented significant progress. The current system thus remains a subject of controversy and criticism, especially in light of the ongoing corruption cases affecting the political class in Spain.
The immunity system, originally intended to ensure the independence of high officials, is increasingly perceived as a privilege that hinders accountability and the fight against corruption. While a reform of this system is complex, as it would require broad agreement among members of parliament to eliminate the prerogative they themselves enjoy, it could significantly help to strengthen trust in institutions and the judicial system among both citizens and the international community.
