The Valencian Antifraude Agency has ended its investigation into the hiring of the president’s partner in the Diputación de Valencia. No evidence of irregularity was found, but questions about the process’s urgency persist.
The Agencia Valenciana Antifraude has officially closed its investigation into the temporary hiring of the partner of Juanfran Pérez Llorca, president of the Generalitat, by the Diputación de Valencia. The agency found no credible evidence to support allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process for the secretary of direction position, which was filled through a temporary commission of services. The case had drawn attention due to the personal connection and the €52,070 annual salary attached to the role.
According to the resolution, which was first reported by Las Provincias and reviewed by Europa Press, the agency determined that the facts presented in the complaint lacked reasonable grounds for veracity. However, the agency left open the possibility of reopening the case if new evidence emerges. The investigation highlighted that, while the position was justified by “urgent need,” the timeline raised doubts: the post was created on July 23, 2025, but the call for temporary coverage was not made public until January 27, 2026—almost six months later. This delay, the agency noted, is difficult to reconcile with the claimed urgency, especially since no specific justification for the lag was documented.
Despite these concerns, Antifraude confirmed that the requirement for a public call was met, as the vacancy was advertised on the Diputación de Valencia’s website on January 28, 2026. The agency also addressed the selection protocol, which relies on a suitability report from the direct supervisor rather than a formal scoring system. This approach, Antifraude stated, does not violate any legal provisions and aligns with Supreme Court doctrine distinguishing between merit-based competitions and provisional appointments via commission of services.
In reviewing the candidates, Antifraude found that all necessary requirements were verified. The partner of Pérez Llorca was deemed the most experienced among five applicants, particularly in administrative C1 roles and secretarial functions, according to a report dated February 13, 2026. One candidate was excluded for not meeting the C1 civil servant criteria. The agency also noted that the position was subsequently offered for permanent filling by decree on March 5, 2026, but Pérez Llorca’s partner did not participate in this definitive selection process, which remains unresolved.
The agency further clarified that the timing of the commission of services—just two months after Pérez Llorca assumed office—does not, by itself, indicate irregularity or procedural illegality. While the coincidence raises questions about the real motivation for urgency, the agency concluded that the issue is now moot, as the person in question did not seek the permanent post. As a result, the case was closed due to loss of object, in accordance with Article 84.2 of Law 39/2015 on administrative procedures. Antifraude stated it would not pursue further investigation unless new, credible evidence is presented.
Juanfran Pérez Llorca had previously called for patience and respect for the agency’s findings, emphasizing the importance of allowing investigations to conclude before drawing conclusions. The case reflects ongoing scrutiny of public sector hiring practices in Spain, especially when personal connections are involved. Similar tensions over government appointments and internal disputes have surfaced in other contexts, such as the recent disagreements within the Spanish cabinet over the Ceuta crisis, as reported in coverage of ministerial conflicts regarding migration policy.
For context, the Agencia Valenciana Antifraude is tasked with ensuring transparency and legality in public administration across the Valencian Community. Its decisions can influence public trust in regional institutions, particularly when high-profile figures are involved. The closure of this case may ease immediate political pressure, but the highlighted procedural doubts could prompt future calls for reform in how urgent public sector appointments are justified and managed.
