A sudden change of court in the case of alleged fraud involving state contracts could alter the course of one of the most talked-about investigations in recent years. For Spaniards, this means not only new faces in the spotlight, but also possible shifts in how high-level corruption is tackled. The Supreme Court’s decision to step back is due to the loss of parliamentary immunity by one of the main defendants, which immediately affected jurisdiction and the further development of events.
At the heart of this story is a former minister who, after his resignation, lost his immunity. As a result, the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) no longer had the authority to continue the investigation. The case files, which mention not only the ex-minister but also Koldo García, Santos Cerdán, Víctor de Aldama, and eight other individuals, have now been transferred to the Central Investigative Court No. 2 of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional). This judicial body will now decide the fate of the high-profile case involving suspicious face mask contracts and the allocation of government orders.
Legal nuances
The court ruling issued by Judge Leopoldo Puente emphasizes that as soon as the sole figure enjoying parliamentary immunity left Congress, the Supreme Court lost its jurisdiction over this case. The official document states that until the start of the trial on the merits, the loss of status as a deputy or senator automatically means the case is handed over to the court of first instance. This is exactly what happened to a separate part of the investigation launched last autumn into alleged irregularities in the allocation of government contracts.
It is important to note that the preliminary investigation has been extended until March 8, giving investigators additional time to gather evidence and question all those involved. Meanwhile, the completed part of the case concerning the procurement of masks has already entered the trial stage, with a decision issued to begin hearings.
Case transfer
Transferring the case to the National Court means the investigation will now fall under a different judicial body. This could affect the pace and approach of the inquiry, as well as which new details become public knowledge. Among the suspects are not only former officials but also entrepreneurs and individuals involved in distributing public funds.
In his ruling, the judge recalled rules established back in 2014: if a defendant loses their immunity before legal proceedings begin, the case automatically leaves the Supreme Court. This practice has repeatedly led to unexpected twists in high-profile investigations, when key suspects changed their status at the most crucial moment.
Defendants and details
Among those now officially implicated in the case are: José Luis Ábalos Meco, Koldo García Izaguirre, Víctor Gonzalo de Aldama Delgado, Santos Cerdán León, as well as eight other individuals. They are all suspected of participating in a scheme involving illegal allocation of government contracts and possible abuses in the procurement of medical supplies.
A separate part of the investigation, launched in September, focused specifically on these episodes. While the mask-related case has already completed the investigation phase, the new episodes are only starting to be reviewed. The investigation promises to be lengthy and intense, as it involves complex schemes and a large number of participants.
Context and similar cases
In recent years, Spain has repeatedly become the stage for high-profile court cases involving corruption and abuses in public procurement. For instance, a case concerning the purchase of medical supplies at the height of the pandemic sparked widespread public outcry and led to the resignation of several officials. A similar situation has occurred in other regions, where changes in the status of suspects have resulted in the transfer of cases between courts of various levels. These transfers often prompt new investigations and reviews of previously made decisions, further fueling public interest in the issues of transparency and accountability in government.
