In Spain, a breach is a separate criminal offence
Under Article 468.2 of the Spanish Penal Code, breaching a judicial prohibition covered by Article 48 — including an order prohibiting approach or communication — in a criminal case involving a person protected under Article 173.2 is itself punishable by six months to one year of imprisonment. BOE
So there is an important distinction:
Domestic-violence offence → conviction
and subsequently:
Breach of the court’s protective order → separate offence.
The second is not merely evidence that someone behaved badly; it is an alleged or established violation of a judicial order.
Repeated breaches can be treated as a continuing offence
Spanish prosecutorial guidance specifically addresses multiple successive breaches. Where there are multiple and successive encounters or repeated communications contrary to an existing prohibition, the conduct can, depending on the circumstances and Article 74 requirements, constitute a continuing offence of breach. BOE
And importantly, the Fiscalía guidance states that the victim’s consent does not simply cancel the court order. A person subject to the prohibition remains bound by it; the judicial order is not merely a private agreement between two people. BOE
Why this matters psychologically
Repeatedly breaching a protective order can have a very different psychological impact from an ordinary relationship boundary being ignored.
The person protected by the order may reasonably think:
“The court has told him not to approach or contact me, yet he continues to do so.”
That can undermine the sense of safety the order was intended to provide.
It can produce:
- heightened vigilance;
- anxiety when unexpectedly seeing the person;
- monitoring of surroundings;
- fear that the behaviour will escalate;
- difficulty feeling safe even after moving away;
- renewed distress each time another breach occurs.
The important psychological point is that the original abuse and the subsequent breach can become separate sources of distress.
And legally, intention doesn’t necessarily have to mean revenge
Recent Spanish case law continues to emphasise that for Article 468.2, the prosecution needs to establish the existing judicial prohibition, the act of violating it, and the required knowledge/dolus — essentially that the person knew the prohibition was in force and consciously violated it. A special motive such as revenge isn’t necessarily required. Iberley
That distinction is important.
Someone can therefore be convicted of breaching an order without the prosecution having to prove that the person was motivated by hatred, revenge or an intention to frighten the protected person.
For US immigration purposes, repeated Spanish restraining-order breaches would need to be analysed from the exact Spanish offence and its elements. The US CIMT test is not simply “was this behaviour morally wrong?” USCIS explains that CIMT classification depends substantially on the elements of the particular offence and the required mental state. USCIS
But repeated convictions for knowingly violating court-imposed protection are certainly a materially different factual situation from one accidental or ambiguous contact, because the record can establish repeated judicial violations.
