One of the most talked-about court cases in recent years has concluded in Andalusia: a judge in Seville has ordered an end to the investigation into alleged misconduct during the signing of emergency contracts within the region’s healthcare system. The case concerned contracts awarded outside standard procedures, even after the formal justifications for such measures had expired. The court’s decision has sparked a mixed response among politicians and the public, as it involves hundreds of millions of euros and actions that, according to the opposition, may have violated principles of transparency and fair competition.
The legal proceedings focused on contracts awarded by the Andalusian Health Service (Servicio Andaluz de Salud, SAS) between 2020 and 2024. During this period, simplified procurement schemes continued despite the repeal of special regulations introduced during the pandemic. According to the court, no evidence of criminal wrongdoing was found in the actions of SAS management. The judge noted that contract extensions were supported by economic justifications and legal opinions, and there were no recorded instances of companies or associations challenging these decisions.
Political context
The lawsuit was initiated by a regional branch of one of the leading opposition parties, which filed a complaint against SAS’s actions at the end of 2024. The document stated that after the emergency measures—which allowed contracts to be awarded without a tender—were lifted, regional authorities continued to use this mechanism for another two years. The total value of the disputed contracts reached 242 million euros, and the procedure itself repeatedly faced criticism from SAS’s financial oversight body.
The judge, however, found no evidence of arbitrariness or abuse of power by SAS management. The ruling noted that all contract extensions were justified by the need to maintain the continuous operation of the healthcare system amid a prolonged crisis. In the court’s view, any violations that may have occurred were not serious and were not aimed at personal gain.
Defense arguments
During the proceedings, the court heard from both current and former SAS executives as well as representatives from the regional finance department. Special attention was given to changes in the contract oversight system: instead of preliminary checks, continuous financial monitoring was introduced, which, according to some experts, reduced transparency. Nevertheless, the judge concluded that this measure was necessary to expedite procurement processes during the emergency.
The court’s decision emphasized that even if some actions taken by officials could be considered questionable, they remained within acceptable limits and did not indicate any intentional violation of the law. The judge also noted that many recommendations put forward by the financial oversight authorities had already been implemented by the regional administration.
Authorities’ response
From the outset, the regional government maintained that extending emergency contracts was a necessary measure aimed at protecting the lives and health of citizens during the pandemic. The head of the region repeatedly stated that any complaints regarding officials’ actions could only be administrative and should not serve as grounds for criminal prosecution.
Despite the closure of this case, legal proceedings regarding contracts in the Andalusian healthcare system are ongoing. New investigations have been launched in other provinces of the region, focusing on possible artificial splitting of contracts to circumvent bidding procedures. In particular, courts in Cádiz and Córdoba are examining the details of agreements worth tens and hundreds of millions of euros, with both opposition parties and individual civic organizations initiating these cases.
New investigations
In Cádiz, investigators are examining whether there were any abuses in the awarding of so-called ‘minor’ contracts, where large purchases were split into several smaller ones to avoid mandatory tenders. According to the investigation, a similar scheme may have been used in Córdoba, where the case is just gaining momentum. In both instances, significant sums are involved, raising concerns over possible violations of transparency principles and equal conditions for all market participants.
While some cases are being closed, others are just beginning to reach the courts. Regional authorities continue to assert their position, while the opposition calls for further investigations and greater transparency. Public debate persists over where to draw the line between the need for swift action in a crisis and the obligation to uphold all legal requirements.
