Four levels of responsibility that every CSC president should know
Being president of a cannabis social club is not an honorary position. It entails specific responsibilities on four distinct levels: civil (towards members and third parties for damages arising from negligent management), administrative (as legal representative of the club before public administrations and responsible for regulatory compliance of the premises), statutory (towards the association itself for decisions made in the exercise of the position), and within the jurisprudential framework that STS 484/2015 and subsequent rulings have defined for CSC directors. Understanding this map of responsibilities is not alarmism: it is the foundation for making informed decisions about how to manage the club and what preventive measures to adopt.
This article is for informational purposes only. To analyze your specific situation, contact Gabriela Sierra.
When someone asks me if they can be the president of a club that is about to be established, my answer always starts with the same thing: before deciding, understand clearly what that position entails.
The question about the president’s responsibility is the one most avoided in the cannabis sector. No one wants to talk about it because it is uncomfortable. But precisely because it is uncomfortable, it is so important to address it clearly: a president who does not know what responsibility they assume cannot make informed decisions about how to manage the club, what controls to implement, or what advice they need.
This article has no alarmist intent. Its purpose is exactly the opposite: that whoever holds or is considering holding the presidency of a CSC has real information about what that position entails. Because correct information, applied in time, is the best prevention tool available.
An important clarification before proceeding: what follows is a general description of the applicable legal framework according to current regulations and available case law. It is not legal advice for any specific case. Each situation has its own circumstances and must be analyzed individually with a specialist. If you have questions about your specific situation, contact Gabriela Sierra directly.
The four levels of responsibility: an overview
The responsibility of a CSC president is not a monolithic block. It is structured on four levels that coexist and that in certain situations can be activated simultaneously. Understanding each one separately is the first step to managing them correctly.
The president may be liable to members or third parties for damages caused by negligent management or breach of obligations inherent to the position. It is processed in the civil sphere and may involve an obligation to compensate.
As legal representative of the club, the president is the main interlocutor before administrations and directly responsible for compliance with licenses, municipal ordinances, and regulations applicable to the premises and activity.
The president is accountable to the association itself for decisions made during their term. Members may demand accountability at the assembly and, in serious cases, exercise internal liability actions provided for in the bylaws.
Supreme Court case law has indicated that CSC directors may be personally implicated if the club fails to meet the criteria that determine whether its activity falls within atypical shared consumption and not distribution.
The four levels of responsibility of a CSC president. Own elaboration. Lawyer Sierra, May 2026. General informational nature, not legal advice.
The first thing I do when someone tells me they are going to be the president of a club they are establishing is ask them if they know exactly what that position entails. The most common answer is a version of “yes, I understand there is some responsibility.” But when we go deeper, it turns out the idea they have is quite vague. They know the president signs things and represents the club. What many are not clear about is that that signature and that representation have specific consequences and that those consequences depend greatly on how the club operates day to day.
I do not say this to dissuade anyone. I say it because a well-informed president makes better decisions. And that benefits the club, the members, and the president themselves.
Level 1: civil liability. When the president may be liable with their assets
The civil liability of the president of an association derives from the general principles of the Civil Code regarding tort liability (articles 1902 and following) and from what the Law on Associations and the club’s own bylaws establish.
In general terms, the president acts as representative of the association and their acts in the exercise of the position are attributed to the entity. However, when damage caused to a member or third party is the consequence of negligent action, contrary to the bylaws, or adopted outside the limits of the position, claims may arise that affect the president personally.
The association is liable with its assets for obligations contracted in the exercise of its activity. The president, as legal representative, is not in principle personally liable with their personal assets for the association’s debts. That separation of assets is one of the fundamental characteristics of the associative structure.
However, that separation has limits. In cases where the president acts fraudulently or with gross negligence, flagrantly breaches their management obligations, or adopts agreements contrary to law or the bylaws that cause damage to the association or third parties, the protection of asset separation may weaken. The most common scenarios in which this occurs are:
- Breach of association obligations that the president knew about and did not address
- Damage to members arising from decisions made with gross negligence in the exercise of the position
- Claims by third parties for club actions that the president endorsed or allowed without adequate statutory support
- Liability towards members themselves if the president acted in their own interest or in conflict of interest with the association
In all these cases, the specific legal assessment depends on the particular circumstances. The best available protection is to exercise the position diligently, within statutory limits, and with documented decisions.
Level 2: administrative liability. The president as interlocutor before the administration
The administrative liability of a CSC president is, in many ways, the most routine and most directly linked to the operation of the premises. The president is the legal representative of the association before any public administration: the city council, the autonomous community, the Tax Agency, or any other body that relates to the club.
This means they are the recipient of notifications, responsible for responding to requirements, and the one who signs documents with effect before third parties. In practice, when the city council opens a closure proceeding, it notifies the president. When there is a violation of activity regulations, the sanction is directed to the association represented by the president. When there is an unfulfilled tax obligation, the tax administration addresses the legal representative.
The president’s administrative exposure is directly related to the club’s regulatory compliance. The areas where non-compliance generates the most consequences for the presidency position are:
- Licenses and activity regulations: the president is responsible for ensuring the premises have a valid municipal enabling title and that the activity complies with the conditions of that title. A closure proceeding, as explained in the article on whether the city council can close a club, is directed to the legal representative.
- Tax obligations of the association: filing Corporate Tax if applicable, managing withholdings on payments to individuals, and compliance with other tax obligations. Non-compliance can generate sanctions and liabilities that the president, as representative, must face.
- Data protection: the association is responsible for processing its members’ data according to GDPR. The president, as representative, is the interlocutor before the Spanish Data Protection Agency in case of complaint or inspection.
- Labor obligations: if the club has employees, failure to comply with labor and Social Security obligations can generate liabilities that reach the legal representative of the employing entity.
There are managers who separate the administrative responsibility from that of the club as a whole very well and assume that “the accounting firm handles that.” The accounting firm files the tax return. But the decision to hire the accounting firm, to give it the correct information, and to verify that what it submits is correct corresponds to the president. Outsourcing administrative tasks does not outsource the responsibility to supervise them. It is a distinction that seems obvious but in practice is frequently forgotten.
Level 3: statutory liability. The president before the association itself
Statutory liability is what the president assumes towards the association itself and its members, within the framework of the internal relationship regulated by the Law on Associations and the club’s bylaws. It is, in a way, the most “domestic” responsibility, but no less relevant for that.
The members’ assembly is the sovereign body of the club and may, if the bylaws so provide, demand accountability from the president for decisions made during their term. This may include accountability for financial management, challenging irregularly adopted agreements, or, in more serious cases, exercising liability actions for damages caused to the association.
Organic Law 1/2002 regulating the Right of Association establishes that members of the board of directors are liable to the association for acts and omissions contrary to law or the bylaws. The most common situations in which this becomes relevant are:
- Adoption of agreements contrary to the bylaws without assembly approval when it was mandatory
- Financial management that generates harm to the association and that members consider negligent or irregular
- Failure to convene ordinary assemblies within established deadlines
- Failure to render accounts or presentation of inaccurate or incomplete accounts
- Actions on behalf of the club that exceed the limits of the position or that have not been ratified by the competent body
The most effective protection against statutory liability is the same as against any other: manage the club transparently, document decisions in the minute book, convene and hold assemblies at the correct times, and render accounts rigorously. All of this is part of the correct operation of a well-managed club.
Are you clear on how your club’s governance should function to reduce internal liability?
Operation of a CSC: governance and administrationLevel 4: the jurisprudential framework. What the Supreme Court says about directors
This is the level that most concerns managers when they read that CSC directors “are personally liable.” And it is also the one that requires the most precision to avoid generating either alarmism or false reassurance.
The key is to understand the framework in which Spanish case law has constructed the figure of the cannabis social club. As I explain in the article on the legality of clubs in Spain, CSCs have no express legal recognition. They operate within what the Supreme Court has called “atypical shared consumption,” a jurisprudential figure that depends on certain criteria being met. If those criteria are met, the club’s activity is not criminal. If they are not met, it may be.
And that is where the directors’ liability comes in. Article 368 of the Criminal Code criminalizes offenses against public health related to drug trafficking. When a club’s activity is classified as constituting that offense, those responsible for its management may be investigated and tried as perpetrators or participants personally.
STS 484/2015 and the rulings that have followed it have established a clear criterion: a CSC’s activity falls outside the criminal sphere when the requirements of atypical shared consumption are met. When they are not met, the classification may be different. And in that classification, directors occupy a central position because they are the ones who manage and decide how the club operates.
Factors that case law has considered relevant in determining the personal liability of directors include, among others:
- Knowledge of irregularities in the club’s operation and omission of corrective measures
- Active participation in decision-making that determined the club’s mode of operation
- Failure to comply with shared consumption criteria: open groups, lack of distribution control, cannabis leaving the premises, or quantities exceeding reasonable self-consumption
- The existence of profit motive or personal benefit derived from the club’s activity
It is important to emphasize that this does not mean every CSC president is exposed to criminal proceedings. It means that personal liability exists and is conditioned by how the club operates. A president of a club that operates correctly, with jurisprudential criteria covered and documentation in order, starts from a radically different position than one whose club presents systematic irregularities.
Assessment of each specific situation requires specialized advice. What this article can offer is the general framework.
When I explain this level in consultation, I always emphasize something I consider fundamental: the personal liability of directors is not an automatic consequence of being president of a club. It is a potential consequence of being president of a club that does not operate as it should. There is an enormous difference between those two things, and that difference is built with work, not luck.
I have seen presidents of clubs with years of absolutely correct track record who have never had the slightest problem. And I have seen presidents of clubs that had been open for months with evident irregularities that ended in proceedings that affected them very directly. The determining variable, in almost all cases, was how the club was managed. That is why compliance is not an expense: it is what allows the president to sleep with a clear conscience that they have done everything in their power.
The risk table: what factors increase or reduce the president’s exposure
Not all club presidents have the same exposure profile. The actual level of risk depends on a combination of factors related to how the club is constituted, how it operates, and what documentation is available. This table includes the most relevant ones.
| Factor | Exposure | What determines the level |
|---|---|---|
| Member admission protocol | High if absent | Without documented verification of each member’s requirements, the club cannot prove it operates with a closed group of known prior consumers. |
| Individual distribution control | High if absent | Without a record of how much cannabis each member obtains and when, it is impossible to demonstrate that quantities are reasonable for self-consumption and that there is no exit from the premises. |
| Premises activity license | High if absent | Without a valid license, the club is vulnerable to an administrative closure proceeding at any time, and the president as legal representative receives those consequences directly. |
| Updated minute book | Medium if absent | Without minutes documenting the club’s decisions, the president cannot demonstrate that relevant decisions were adopted correctly or that they were aware of what was happening in the club. |
| Documented financing model | Medium if absent | Without an approved budget and without a record of contributions linked to actual costs, fees cannot be justified as cost-sharing before any review. The president, as responsible for financial management, is left without support. |
| Ongoing legal advice | Low with advice | A president who makes decisions with specialized legal support and has an established working relationship with a CSC expert lawyer has the best possible position to face any contingency. |
| Periodic compliance audit | Low with audit | A club that has undergone a recent compliance audit can prove it has reviewed its operation against jurisprudential criteria and has taken measures to correct what was not right. |
What this factor map teaches
The factors of greatest exposure are exactly the operational elements covered by a rigorous management model: member admission, controlled distribution, premises license, minutes, and documented financing. This is no coincidence: the president’s liability is directly linked to how the club operates. A president who has all these elements resolved has the lowest possible exposure profile. One who does not assumes risks that could be avoided with prior work.
What the president can do to reduce their exposure
The best response to all of the above is not to stop being president. It is to be one correctly. And being one correctly means exactly what any manager with judgment would do in any other non-profit entity: manage transparently, document decisions, comply with regulations, and have reference legal advice.
- Know the club’s bylaws and internal regulations thoroughly, and ensure that decisions made in the exercise of the position comply with what they establish. If the bylaws need updating, proposing that update at the assembly is part of the position.
- Document all relevant decisions in the minute book. A decision not recorded in minutes has no trace of having been adopted correctly. Minutes are the president’s first defense against any internal or external claim.
- Supervise the club’s actual operation, not just formal matters. The president who signs documents but does not know how the club operates day to day cannot claim ignorance if something goes wrong in that operation.
- Keep the club’s documentation current: licenses, records, member files, and accounting. As explained in detail in the article on how a club is financed, orderly accounting is not bureaucracy but the basis of any defense.
- Have specialized legal advice on an ongoing basis, not only when a problem arises. Monthly legal advice for CSCs is designed exactly for that preventive accompaniment.
- Conduct a periodic compliance audit. The compliance service for CSCs reviews the club’s operation against all relevant criteria and provides a report with points to correct. It is the most direct tool for the president to know exactly where they stand.
When I work with a president on a compliance audit, what we seek together is something very specific: that if at some point someone asks how this club operates and whether the president knew what was happening, the answer is always yes, they knew, and here is documented what they did about it. That is the position from which it makes most sense to defend anything that may arise. The alternative, that no one knows exactly how the club operates because no one has seriously reviewed it, is precisely the one that does not suit anyone.
The position of president is not the only one that entails responsibility
Everything developed in this article about the president applies, to varying degrees depending on their statutory functions, to the other members of the board of directors: the secretary and the treasurer. The secretary is responsible for documentation and the minute book. The treasurer is responsible for financial management and accounting. All three share responsibility for representation and management of the club, and all three may be affected by the consequences of incorrect operation.
If you want to understand the broader legal context in which a CSC’s board of directors operates, the article on the legality of clubs in Spain and the one explaining how a club operates correctly are the most useful starting points.
Do you understand what the City Council can do with your club and how to act before an inspection?
Administrative closure of a CSCDo you know exactly what the police can and cannot do in your club?
The Police and cannabis clubsDo you want to analyze your specific situation as president of a CSC?
This article explains the general framework. Your specific situation may have nuances that can only be assessed with complete information. I can help you understand them.
Contact Gabriela SierraFrequently asked questions about the responsibility of the president of a cannabis club
Is the president liable if a member suffers an accident inside the club?
If a member suffers harm within the club’s facilities, primary liability belongs to the association as an entity. The club must have liability insurance that covers such contingencies. In principle, the president’s personal liability is not automatically activated by an accident. However, if the accident is the consequence of regulatory non-compliance that the president knew about and did not correct (for example, deficient technical conditions of the premises that the city council had noted in a prior inspection), the situation may be different. Each specific case requires specific analysis.
What happens if the president was unaware of an irregularity in the club’s operation?
Lack of knowledge may be relevant in some contexts, but it has important limits. The president has a general supervisory obligation for the club that cannot be ignored by claiming “I did not know.” If the irregularities were evident or perceptible with minimally diligent supervision, the argument of ignorance weakens. That is why it is so important that the president is not just a signature: they must actually know how the club operates and have control mechanisms that allow them to detect problems before they worsen.
Can the president resign to avoid liability for past acts?
Not generally. Resignation from the position takes effect from when it occurs, but does not extinguish liabilities arising from actions performed during the term. A president who resigns after an irregularity has occurred remains liable for their actions during the period they held the position. Resignation may be the correct decision in certain circumstances, but not as an escape mechanism from liabilities already generated.
Is it riskier to be president than treasurer or secretary?
All three positions entail responsibilities, but of different types and scope. The president has the broadest representation responsibility and is the main interlocutor before the administration. The treasurer has specific responsibility for financial management. The secretary has it for documentation and club records. In terms of general exposure, the presidency usually entails the greatest scope of representation and therefore the greatest visibility before third parties. But in specific situations of irregularity, liability may reach any of the three positions depending on what their decision-making area was and what they knew or should have known.
Does it make sense to have liability insurance for club directors?
Yes, it may. Some insurance policies for associations include liability coverage for directors for their actions in the exercise of the position. It is not a widespread product in the cannabis sector, but it exists. What is essential in any case is the club’s general liability insurance, which covers damages that the club’s activity may cause to members or third parties within the facilities. The existence of that insurance does not exempt from liability, but it is part of prudent risk management of the position.
Is there any time limit for demanding accountability from a club president?
Yes. Limitation periods vary depending on the type of liability. Civil liability actions have periods ranging from one to five years depending on the type of action. Administrative infractions have their own limitation periods according to applicable sectoral regulations. In the criminal sphere, periods depend on the seriousness of the offense. All these periods are counted from the moment liability can be demanded, and their specific application depends on the circumstances of each case. Consultation with a specialist is always the safest way to understand what periods apply to a specific situation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalized legal advice for any specific case. The liability framework for a CSC president depends on multiple specific factors: the club’s bylaws, its actual mode of operation, applicable regulations, and the evolution of case law. To analyze your specific situation, contact me.