A new chapter is unfolding in Spain’s high-profile legal saga: the State Attorney’s Office (Abogacía del Estado) is preparing to file an appeal with the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction of former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz. He was previously found guilty of disclosing official secrets and sentenced to a two-year disqualification, a €7,200 fine, and ordered to pay €10,000 in damages to businessman Alberto González Amador, who is known for his relationship with the prominent political figure Isabel Díaz Ayuso.
The core of the accusation is the publication of email correspondence related to an investigation into two tax crimes involving González Amador. This episode triggered the court case, and is now at the heart of efforts to revisit the matter at the highest judicial level.
The State Attorney’s Office argues that García Ortiz’s fundamental rights were violated during sentencing. In the next few hours, the Supreme Court will receive a motion to annul the verdict, along with a separate request to suspend the punishment. This marks the last opportunity to change the outcome before appealing to the Constitutional Court.
Defense arguments
The Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber handed down a decision by majority: five justices supported the conviction, while two dissented. The dissenting opinion was emphatic: even if the information in the media is false, the head of the prosecutor’s office is not entitled to respond by breaking the law.
The judges found that García Ortiz, either personally or through intermediaries, was responsible for a leak of information, allowing the radio program Hora 25 on Cadena SER to publish the contents of a letter from lawyer González Amador addressed to the prosecutor’s office. In the letter, the businessman agreed to plead guilty to two tax offenses in exchange for a reduced sentence.
The verdict also references a press release distributed by the prosecutor’s office to clarify the timeline of events. According to the prosecution, this too was part of the crime. The prosecutor’s office, in turn, has already stated that procedural rules were violated: during the proceedings the charges were expanded and the defense was not given an opportunity to respond to the new allegations.
Legal intricacies
A key point: the court decided that the obligation to maintain confidentiality remains with the prosecutor even after some information is made public. However, Deputy Attorney General María Ángeles Sánchez Conde disagrees with this position. She argues that the law does not consider publication of information already known to the public as a breach of confidentiality—if a secret is no longer secret, then no crime has been committed.
Filing a motion to invalidate a sentence is the only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision that has already entered into force. If the judges agree with the arguments of the defense and the prosecution, the sentence may be annulled. However, the chances of this outcome are extremely slim. If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, García Ortiz’s only remaining option will be to take his case to the Constitutional Court, alleging a violation of his rights.
Return to the Profession
While the legal battle continues, García Ortiz is returning to his position at the Supreme Court, where he serves as prosecutor in the Social Affairs Section. This is the highest rank in the prosecutorial career in Spain. According to media reports, he chose this area himself, as it is considered less public and more tranquil.
Since his resignation in November 2025, when the government appointed Teresa Peramato as the new Attorney General, García Ortiz has tried to keep a low profile. Many see his return to the Social Affairs Section as an attempt to distance himself from political storms and scandals.
Consequences for the System
The Supreme Court limited the ruling only to the position of Attorney General, without barring García Ortiz from holding other posts within the prosecutor’s office or civil service. This decision has sparked mixed reactions in the legal community: some see it as fair, while others view it as too lenient or, conversely, overly harsh.
The situation surrounding García Ortiz once again raises the issue of the boundaries of official secrecy and the responsibility of public officials for disclosing information. In Spain, debates have long persisted over where the public’s right to information ends and an official’s duty to safeguard secrets begins. This case could set a precedent that will define the rules of the game for the entire system.
