A high-profile court ruling in Valencia has taken Spain by surprise. A judicial panel has ordered criminal proceedings against former Vice President of the Valencian government Monica Oltra and nine others. They are accused of concealing information about sexual crimes committed by Oltra’s former husband in 2016–2017. This decision contradicts the stance of both the prosecutor’s office and the investigative judge, who previously considered there was insufficient evidence for charges. The case has now gained new momentum, and its ramifications could affect not only those involved but the entire system for handling similar cases in the country.
The chamber, presided over by Judge Pedro Castellanos, unanimously decided that plaintiffs cannot be denied the right to trial if there is a possibility the accused’s actions could be deemed criminal. According to El Confidencial, this decision follows a prolonged standoff between the trial court and the higher court. Investigative judge Vicente Ríos, after a lengthy investigation, had concluded that the evidence against Oltra and former Equality Department officials was insufficient. However, the appellate court found that some of the actions of those involved warranted further examination.
Positions of the parties
The prosecutor’s office supported the investigators’ decision to close the case, citing insufficient grounds for pressing charges. However, the appellate judges determined that the charges should proceed to court if the victim’s side considers them justified. This decision could set a new standard for handling cases involving officials and possible cover-ups of crimes. The court’s ruling emphasized that even in the absence of clear evidence, if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, the case should be brought before the court.
During the proceedings, disagreements arose between the court of first instance and the appellate panel. The investigating judge maintained that there were no grounds for prosecution, a position supported by the prosecution office. However, the appeals court insisted on the necessity of a trial to allow the accusing side to present their arguments. According to El Confidencial, this decision may become a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Response and consequences
The court’s decision sparked widespread public debate. Society is discussing the fairness of prosecuting former officials for actions related to concealing information about crimes. Some experts believe such rulings could strengthen oversight of government officials and increase transparency in public administration. Others worry this may lead to the excessive criminalization of managerial errors.
Recalling other high-profile court cases, it is worth noting that such disputes between courts of different instances are not uncommon. For example, a recent case in Madrid took an unexpected turn in the Pujol trial, when a witness, summoned by mistake, demanded an investigation into her own involvement, surprising all participants in the proceedings. You can read more about this incident in the article about the courtroom confusion during the Pujol case.
Context and similar cases
In recent years, Spain has seen an uptick in cases where courts overturn decisions made by investigators and prosecutors, demanding more thorough review of matters involving public officials. Such situations often spark public debate and raise questions about the limits of official accountability. In 2025, a similar incident occurred in Barcelona, where the court insisted on hearing a case of abuse of office despite protests from the prosecutor’s office. These decisions demonstrate that Spain’s judiciary is becoming increasingly independent and willing to revisit established approaches to investigating and adjudicating cases related to those in power.
