A debate is brewing in Spain over how court costs are collected following a high-profile case involving the disclosure of confidential information. The Supreme Court has ordered former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz to pay nearly €80,000 in legal expenses. The prosecution considers this amount excessive and is calling for it to be overturned, potentially impacting how court costs are calculated in future proceedings.
The crux of the dispute is that the amount demanded is almost eight times higher than the compensation set by the court. Supreme Court prosecutor Ángeles Sánchez Conde has filed an official objection, arguing that the calculation of costs was flawed. She points out that the expenses include fees for lawyers and representatives not directly linked to García Ortiz’s actions, as well as costs incurred before he was ever held liable.
Prosecution’s arguments
The prosecution emphasizes that, by law, attorney fees should not exceed one-third of the principal penalty amount, although this rule does not formally apply to criminal cases. Sánchez Conde argues that the court should use the principle of reasonableness to prevent court costs from becoming an additional punishment for the convicted. She also calls for excluding from the calculation the expenses related to the involvement of the Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) in the proceedings, as this organization participated only as a public prosecutor.
A key point is that the main part of the penalty—Garcia Ortiz’s removal from office—has already been carried out following his resignation. The fine and compensation were fully paid by the professional association of prosecutors. However, the issue of court costs remains unresolved and continues to spark heated debate between the parties.
The Role of Bar Associations
The Madrid Bar Association, whose opinion the court usually seeks when determining costs, found itself at the center of the conflict. Both the prosecution and Garcia Ortiz’s defense insist that ICAM should not be involved in the evaluation since it was a party to the proceedings. The association’s representatives, in turn, argue that their role is limited to providing expert assessment rather than making decisions, and that they do not benefit from the recovered sums.
According to El Pais, the calculation of costs included not only attorney Alberto González Amador’s fees but also additional sums for services unrelated to Garcia Ortiz’s actions. The prosecution considers this a violation of the principle of fairness and is demanding a revision of the final amount.
Implications for the Judicial System
This case could set a precedent for future proceedings related to the determination of legal costs in Spain. If the Supreme Court upholds the prosecutor’s demands, it may lead to a revision of the approaches to calculating expenses and greater scrutiny of their justification. It is worth noting that similar disputes have arisen before, when courts reduced amounts claimed by lawyers in order to prevent excessive financial pressure on convicted individuals.
Amid political tensions in Madrid involving the circle around Isabel Díaz Ayuso, this trial takes on added significance. In recent years, court rulings have already sparked major scandals, as was the case when the opposition demanded the resignation of one of the region’s key political figures, detailed in the article on the impact of Constitutional Court decisions on Ayuso’s allies.
Background and similar cases
In recent years, Spain has seen repeated disputes over the amount of legal fees, especially in cases involving high-profile individuals. In 2024, a notable case saw the court nearly halve the sum claimed by lawyers following a convict’s complaint. Similar situations have been observed in other regions of the country, where courts sought to limit the financial burden for the losing party. These developments highlight that the question of fair legal cost calculation remains pertinent and requires ongoing attention from the courts and professional associations.
