A judicial drama is unfolding in Spain around the country’s Attorney General. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case details, decided to reduce the bail amount required from the head of the prosecution. Initially, the bail was set at 150,000 euros, but after a reassessment of the criteria, the sum was halved.
The reason for this decision was the judge’s acknowledgment that the original calculation method contradicted the constitution. Specifically, a potential fine was included in the calculations, which, as it turned out, should not have been taken into account. This became the basis for adjusting the amount.
The Attorney General, for his part, disagrees with the need to pay any bail at all. He argues that current legislation exempts him from this obligation, as the actions in question were carried out in the line of duty. Typically, in such cases, public officials are not required to post bail if they are represented by a state attorney.
The court proceedings relate to allegations of disclosing confidential information, allegedly concerning a businessman linked to the Madrid administration. As a precautionary measure, the judge initially demanded bail, citing possible compensation and other financial liabilities. However, a few days later, the judge admitted a miscalculation and reduced the amount to 75,000 euros.
By this point, the prosecutor had already posted bail, using real estate as collateral since he did not have the required amount in cash. Nevertheless, his defense continues to insist on lifting the bail, arguing that it is unjustified. If the court does not accept these arguments, the lawyers are demanding a further reduction in the amount, pointing out that similar cases in the past have not resulted in any compensation payments.
The situation remains tense, and a final decision on the bail issue is still pending. Spain’s judicial system is once again in the spotlight, and the fate of the Attorney General depends on the court’s next steps.
