A judge ratifies a fine of 100 euros for the man who tried to access the City of Justice in Valencia naked

The contentious court number 2 of Valencia has ratified the imposition of a fine of 100 euros on the man who tried to access the City of Justice naked where the trial was to be held, precisely because of that fine imposed in the Valencian town of Xirivella.

The judge maintains that, from the statement of the police officers who fined her, it is clear that the practice of nudity outside a police station is an obscene act.

The events date back to 2021 when Alejandro C. went to the Xirivella police station to protest proposed sanctions for acts similar to the one that was subsequently fined.

He went naked "except for shoes and the mandatory mask" to the main door of the police station.

According to the police officers who sanctioned him, there were several people outside the judicial premises, including "elderly people and minors."

The sentence includes the testimony of the agents who assured that the man's nudity caused "visible discomfort among those present and the other passers-by, since in the face of their protests to cover their private parts and the requests of the signing agents to to put on some clothing,

The man was fined 100 euros and the trial on the appeal of this sanction was held on September 27, which he also attended naked.

That day, three agents of the Civil Guard, from the security group of the City of Justice of Valencia, prevented him from passing and another group of five national police officers surrounded him and forced him to get dressed with the warning that he would be proposed for sanction. if he did not, since at that precise moment a minor was also accessing the building.

The judge considers that, contrary to what the man alleges, who maintained that he was only exercising his right to ideological freedom or conscience, practicing nudism, there was a crime, included in the gag law, which sanctions "acts of exhibition obscene”.

For the judge “an obscene act is one that, according to the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language, is immodest, clumsy or offensive to modesty.

And therefore in its last meaning, the obscene act, it is from the perspective of the one who perceives the act and not of the one who performs it.

So the question lies in assessing the circumstances or the context in which nudism is practiced in a public space, where, obviously, it is not expressly authorized”.

A) Yes,

sentence that the nudity "attacked the modesty of those people" and that "this attack on the modesty or modesty of some of the people who witnessed the appellant means that the fact of being naked at the doors of the police station in the presence of a group of people, is an obscene act.”

In addition, the judge indicates that "although current society has evolved towards a normalization of naked bodies, nudity is still considered as belonging to the private sphere or the sphere of intimacy of people and its exhibition in public, or in spaces public as in cars, it can affect the modesty of the citizenry”.