Supreme Court Judgment 426/2026 of 24 June (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2963) clarifies that not all cuts to electricity, water, gas, telephone or internet supplies in a property necessarily constitute the offence of coercion. The key factor is not merely that a supply has been cut off: what matters, above all, is whether the person occupying the property has any legal title – even if it is apparent or disputed – that justifies their possession.
The ruling was handed down in a matrimonial dispute, but it contains a clarification of particular interest in cases involving the occupation of properties. Its message must be read carefully: the Supreme Court does not grant a general authorisation to cut off supplies, but rather distinguishes according to the legal status of the person occupying the property.
The case decided by the Supreme Court
The case arose from a marital separation. The husband, the formal holder of the electricity contract, had the supply to the family home disconnected without notifying his wife, who was left without electricity for several days. The established facts stated that the intention was to force her to leave the house and to improve his position in the negotiations arising from the break-up.
The Supreme Court confirmed that, in such circumstances, the disconnection constitutes the offence of coercion. It held that depriving the person who lawfully occupies the property of electricity, with the aim of forcing them to leave, is a form of coercion through material means capable of subduing their will.
The criterion: the legal status of the person occupying the property is decisive
The key new development lies in the limitation that the Court expressly sets out. The Chamber warns that this criterion cannot be automatically applied to all cases of supply disconnection. It distinguishes between two scenarios:
- An occupant with a legitimate, apparent or disputed title. If the person has the right to use the property — for example, through a right of use, a tenancy agreement or possession whose legitimacy is in dispute — cutting off a necessary supply to force them to leave may constitute coercion. It is not sufficient for the property owner or the holder of the contract to be the same person as the one ordering the disconnection.
- Occupant with no right or title to support their occupation. The Court expressly mentions the case of someone who has squatted in the property (‘okupa’). In this context, it holds that the owner’s decision not to maintain the supply or to continue paying for it suggests that the act is not punishable, because the element of acting ‘without authorisation’ may be lacking; it would not be reasonable to require the owner to maintain services for the benefit of someone who has gained unlawful access to the property, and this would prevent unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the judgement does not assert that cutting off the electricity supply is always lawful in relation to a person occupying a property. What it maintains is that, when the occupier lacks any legal title and their access is unlawful, maintaining the utilities at the owner’s expense need not be an obligation, the failure to fulfil which would constitute coercion.
Does this legal principle extend to water, gas or telephone services?
Although the litigation concerned the electricity supply, the reasoning does not rest on any technical peculiarity of electricity, but rather on the relationship between the disconnection, the right of possession of the person affected and the coercive purpose of the conduct. Consequently, the criterion may be applied to other services linked to the use of the dwelling — such as water, gas, telephone or internet connection — but not in a mechanical manner.
In each case, it will be necessary to assess, amongst other factors, the nature and necessity of the service, who the contract holder is, the occupant’s actual and legal status of possession, whether there is a court order or ongoing proceedings, and the purpose pursued by the interruption. The judgement itself emphasises that its legal principle must not be applied ‘automatically or uncritically’ to any instance of disconnection, non-payment or cut-off of supplies.
What does this judgement not permit?
Nor does the ruling turn the disconnection of utilities into a mechanism for extrajudicial eviction. Where there is a legitimate or reasonably disputable right of use, the dispute must be resolved through the appropriate legal channels, not by means of fait accompli intended to render the dwelling uninhabitable. In the matrimonial case, the Court emphasises that formal ownership of the contract did not entitle the husband to cancel a service necessary for the use of the shared home, without notice and with the aim of forcing the wife to leave.
A useful conclusion for landlords and tenants
Supreme Court Ruling 426/2026 provides an important guideline: the risk of criminal liability for cutting off utilities depends on the legal status of the person occupying the property and the purpose of the action.
If the person is in lawful possession of the property (such as a tenant, even if they do not pay rent), cutting off supplies with the aim of forcing them to leave may constitute the offence of coercion.
Conversely, in the case of occupation without any valid title (a ‘squatter’), the judgement suggests that the owner is not criminally liable to maintain — or pay for — utilities for the benefit of someone who has gained unlawful access to the property.
The difference is crucial. Before cancelling a contract or cutting off a supply, it is advisable to examine the available documentation, the status of any civil or criminal proceedings, and the specific circumstances of the occupation. The solution does not depend on a label — ‘owner’ or ‘occupier’ — but on the verifiable facts of each case.
