“Habitatge per a tothom” (“Housing for everyone”). The words on this placard sum up one of the demands I photographed in central Barcelona on 11 November. Other signs spoke about being able to live in the city or criticised the role of investment funds.
On 11 November I was in central Barcelona for part of what happened after the general strike march.
I saw several bins and piles of rubbish burning, large plumes of smoke, blocked streets, police and groups of people around some of the places where incidents were unfolding. Many of the people I saw that evening were young, and some looked very young.
That is a personal observation. It cannot establish who started each fire, who took part in a particular act or, much less, how old someone was from their appearance.
That distinction matters to me.
The day had brought tens of thousands of people together over access to housing, wages and the cost of living. The main march drew 55,000 people according to Barcelona’s Guardia Urbana and 400,000 according to the organisers. News reports agree that the main march was peaceful and that serious incidents began after it ended.
Hours later, much of the public conversation was dominated by different images: fires, broken shop windows, fireworks and clashes.
Understanding a social demand does not mean excusing those acts. Nor do those acts automatically make everyone who protested peacefully responsible.
Keeping the two separate matters both in law and in understanding what happened.
What were people calling for on 11 November?
The general strike was called over several issues.
UGT and CCOO rallied around “Wages · Housing · Prices”. Their demands included affordable housing, better pay, collective bargaining, shorter working hours, tackling insecure work and public services. The tenants’ movement put the housing crisis at the centre of the protest. These were the positions of the organisations that called the action.
The placards I photographed approached housing in different ways. One called for housing for everyone. Another, also in Catalan, read “Només si som capaços d’habitar podrem construir” (“Only if we are able to inhabit can we build”). In Spanish, “Fuera fondos buitres” (“Vulture funds out”) criticised investment funds, while “Los bancos tienen casas sin gente…” (“Banks have homes with nobody in them…”) pointed to empty homes. The photographs record those messages as they appeared on the street.
That does not establish that Spanish society as a whole backed the strike programme.
There is, however, evidence that housing, a central part of the debate, is a concern far beyond the organising unions.
In the October 2026 CIS survey, 55.7% of respondents named housing as one of Spain’s main problems and 33.8% cited it as a problem affecting them personally. A further 82.3% favoured treating housing primarily as a constitutional right over treating it as a market commodity.
Those figures do not measure support for the strike. They show that the issue that brought many people onto the streets is a widely documented concern.
What happened in Barcelona after the march?
The main march passed through central Barcelona and ended around Plaça Catalunya.
Incidents then took place mainly around Passeig de Gràcia, Gran Via, Plaça Catalunya, Carrer de Pelai and neighbouring streets. Reports described fires involving bins and street furniture, smashed shop windows, entry into or theft from some shops, fireworks, clashes and police interventions.
The figures changed overnight as the operation continued. The Mossos initially reported 18 arrests. Mayor Jaume Collboni later put the number at about 50. On the morning of 12 November, the Catalan Interior Department and the Mossos reported 52 arrests, including six minors. An arrest is neither a conviction nor proof of the offences initially alleged by police.
Police interventions and charges also took place in Barcelona and other cities that day. Trade unions criticised some of those interventions. Isolated footage or a general account cannot establish whether a specific police intervention was lawful. That requires knowing its circumstances.
Protesting is a fundamental right
The legal starting point is clear.
Article 21 of the Spanish Constitution recognises the right to peaceful, unarmed assembly. Exercising it does not require prior authorisation.
Assemblies in public thoroughfares and demonstrations are subject to prior notification. The authorities may prohibit them only where there are well-founded reasons to expect a breach of public order that endangers people or property.
Organic Law 9/1983 on the right of assembly sets out this framework. Among other things, it allows a demonstration to be suspended or dispersed where disturbances endanger people or property or another statutory ground applies.
The question cannot be reduced to a choice between an “authorised demonstration” and an “illegal demonstration”.
Thousands of people can peacefully exercise a fundamental right while others nearby or after the march engage in conduct that must be assessed individually under criminal law.
When conduct at a protest may become a criminal matter
The right to protest does not protect conduct simply because it takes place during a protest.
Breaking a shop window, setting an object on fire, assaulting someone or acting violently towards an officer may involve different offences. A few seconds of video do not automatically establish which offence applies.
Article 557 of the Spanish Criminal Code covers certain public disorder offences. It includes acts of violence or intimidation against people or property, obstructing roads in a way that creates specified risks, and other conduct covered by the provision, where people act as a group and with the purpose the law requires. The elements of the offence must be established. Being in a street where incidents are happening is insufficient.
Damage to someone else’s property may fall under Article 263. If the damage is caused by fire or other especially destructive means, Article 266 may apply. Article 351 covers a more serious situation: a fire that endangers life or physical safety. Without that danger, the Code refers back to the rules on property damage under Article 266.
There is therefore no single sentence for setting a bin on fire. It matters what burned, how the fire started, what risk and damage resulted and exactly what each person did.
Similar distinctions apply to conduct directed at public officers. Articles 550 and 551 cover offences against public authority and certain aggravating circumstances involving assault, serious intimidation, violence or serious resistance under the conditions set by law. An argument, mere presence or disobedience does not automatically fall into the same category.
Liability is individual
This point seems especially important after a night like 11 November.
The Criminal Code defines several ways of taking part in an offence and provides for the liability of perpetrators and accomplices. Being physically present at a demonstration does not create collective liability.
One person may have come to call for better pay, another to protest about rent, another simply to watch, and another to damage property.
Their legal positions are different.
Defending the right to protest does not justify a fire. The fact that a fire occurred does not make the whole demonstration responsible for it.
What if a minor takes part in unrest?
I was struck that night by how young some people looked. Appearance alone cannot establish their age.
The police figures released on 12 November did establish that six of the 52 people arrested were minors.
Being under 18 does not automatically exclude liability.
Organic Law 5/2000 on the criminal responsibility of minors applies to people aged 14 to 17 who commit acts defined as criminal offences. It provides a separate system from that for adults, with a significant educational component. It can also include restrictions on liberty and different forms of detention in the cases provided for by law.
Children under 14 are not held liable under that law. The relevant child protection mechanisms may apply.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that minors can never be held criminally responsible or that they are automatically treated as adults.
Violence, headlines and demands: a view from the street
The events of 11 November made a paradox especially visible.
Tens of thousands took to Barcelona’s streets to talk about housing, wages and the cost of living, among other issues.
Hours later, the most striking photographs were of flames.
It is easy to see why. A burning bin has an immediate visual impact that a placard about collective bargaining or a survey statistic does not.
That difference has consequences.
When a few people break shop windows, set fire to street furniture or clash violently with police, the public conversation can shift in minutes. The issue that brought thousands out gives way to talk of the fires.
It is possible to condemn violence while taking seriously the demands of people who protested peacefully. Recognising a social concern as legitimate or important does not provide a legal justification for any violence committed in its name.
To me, that is one of the clearest lessons from what I saw in Barcelona.
The right to protest lets people bring a collective demand into public space peacefully. Anyone who commits violence there may face individual legal consequences and may also drown out the message of thousands who took no part in those acts.
Frequently asked questions
Is it legal to protest in Spain?
Yes. The Constitution recognises the right to peaceful, unarmed assembly. Demonstrations in public thoroughfares require prior notification. The authorities do not have discretion to grant or deny the exercise of the right as they please.
Does attending a demonstration make me liable for damage caused by others?
Not automatically. Criminal liability requires an assessment of each person’s actual role as a perpetrator, instigator, cooperator or accomplice, as well as the elements of the offence under investigation. Mere presence is not enough to attribute someone else’s actions to you.
Does setting a bin on fire always fall under Article 351?
No. It depends on the circumstances. Article 351 requires a danger to life or physical safety. Without that danger, the Code refers to property damage by fire under Article 266, without ruling out other offences that may apply.
What happens if a minor takes part in unrest?
People aged 14 to 17 may be held liable under the separate system in Organic Law 5/2000. Children under 14 are not liable under that law, and child protection mechanisms may apply.
Sources and references
Legal sources
- Spanish Constitution, Article 21
- Organic Law 9/1983 on the right of assembly
- Spanish Criminal Code
- Organic Law 5/2000 on the criminal responsibility of minors