A dispute is heating up in Spain that could impact personal data protection and the functioning of government agencies. The Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold the conviction of former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz for disclosing confidential tax information. This decision could set a new precedent for similar cases and reshape the approach to officials’ liability for leaking personal data.
Defense arguments
The lawyer for Alberto González Amador insists that the conviction against García Ortiz should remain in force. He argues that neither the presumption of innocence nor the principle of legality was violated during the trial. The defense emphasizes that only the former prosecutor’s team was involved in preparing and publishing the controversial press release, which included details of the tax case.
Special attention is given to the €10,000 compensation awarded to the partner of Madrid’s president Isabel Díaz Ayuso. The defense believes this amount is actually understated, especially compared to similar cases involving fundamental rights violations.
Prosecution’s position
The private prosecution claims that only García Ortiz and his press secretary Mar Hedo had access to the information and were involved in drafting the press release. According to the case files, journalists gained access to the email only after it was obtained by García Ortiz. There is also a record of a phone conversation between a journalist and the former prosecutor, which, according to the prosecution, indicates coordinated actions.
The prosecution maintains that all necessary evidence, including correspondence and phone records, was presented during the trial. Meanwhile, neither García Ortiz nor his team provided expert analysis that could challenge this evidence or confirm the existence of other sources for the leak.
Case Details
At the center of the scandal is the media publication of the contents of an email in which lawyer Carlos Neira, representing the interests of González Amador, offered the prosecution a pre-trial agreement. The letter included an admission to two tax offenses. After this information appeared in the press, a large-scale campaign followed, during which Ayuso’s partner was publicly labeled a ‘tax fraudster.’
The next day, the prosecutor’s office issued a press release to refute false information about an admission of guilt. This document was prepared personally by García Ortiz and his press secretary. The prosecution argues that this very press release became the key evidence of a violation of the data protection law.
Reaction of the parties
González Amador’s lawyer emphasizes that the court’s decision was not unexpected: from the very beginning, the case focused on the illegality of publishing the press release. The appellate court also acknowledged that the actions of García Ortiz and his team were coordinated and aimed at disseminating confidential information.
The prosecution points out that state attorneys attempted to exclude from the case evidence related to correspondence and phone calls. In addition, it notes the lack of an institutional response to the data leak, which, according to the prosecution, indicates insufficient oversight of the actions of senior officials.
Possible consequences
The Supreme Court must consider motions to overturn the verdict, submitted by both García Ortiz’s defense and the prosecutor’s office. If the court rejects these motions, the parties will be able to appeal to the Constitutional Court. If the verdict is upheld, the case may set a precedent for future proceedings regarding the disclosure of official information.
The question of the compensation amount also remains unresolved. The defense maintains that the sum of €10,000 does not correspond to the severity of the violation, while the prosecution considers it fair given the impact on the affected party. The court’s final decision could influence compensation practices in similar cases and change attitudes toward personal data protection in Spain.
