The Supreme Court’s 22 June 2026 verdict in the high-profile corruption case involving former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos has drawn criticism from government allies and increased pressure on Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. After a trial held in April and May, the court sentenced Ábalos to 24 years and three months in prison and his former adviser Koldo García to 19 years and eight months. Businessman Víctor de Aldama received a four-and-a-half-year sentence, but the court suspended his imprisonment because he cooperated with investigators. Sánchez’s parliamentary partners have questioned the sharp disparity, including why Aldama will not go to prison and why the ruling did not require him to pay the €3.7 million fine sought by prosecutors.
The case concerned the prioritization of a contract for 13 million face masks and alleged illegal commissions. The court found that Ábalos, García and Aldama were part of a criminal organization that exploited the minister’s position for financial gain. Aldama was described as an intermediary who used political connections to help the mask-related business. The court suspended his sentence on conditions: he must avoid further crimes, report on his activities every six months and complete one year of community service. The outcome has become a flashpoint for critics who argue that his cooperation brought a large benefit to a basic participant in the scheme.
Sumar spokespersons Aina Vidal and Verónica Martínez Barbero have been particularly vocal, condemning Aldama’s avoidance of prison and demanding a detailed public explanation from Sánchez. Barbero called on the president to use his parliamentary appearance to address the corruption case and report progress on pending legislative reforms. These include housing and the so-called “gag law,” alongside working-hours regulation. Representatives of Sumar and Compromís have criticized what they see as a double standard in the justice system, arguing that political connections can influence sentencing outcomes.
Alberto Ibáñez of Compromís, now part of Sumar, highlighted the disparity by comparing the treatment of minor thefts with large-scale corruption. He argued that those responsible for millions in losses escape meaningful consequences and urged Sánchez to fulfill promises made in July of the previous year on anti-corruption measures and judicial independence. Agueda Micó, now with the Mixed Group, echoed concerns that the verdict sends a dangerous message to business figures implicated in corruption. She insisted that the government clarify any links between the cases and the Socialist Party’s finances.
The Galician Nationalist Bloc (BNG) has maintained its support for the government while tying it to the democratic reforms it had previously requested in writing. BNG’s Néstor Rego criticized what he described as a lack of concrete action against corruption, arguing that responsibility calls for decisive measures beyond statements. Meanwhile, Podemos has distanced itself from the government. Party leader Ione Belarra said that such a severe sentence for a president’s former deputy cannot be treated as routine. She also pointed to Ábalos’s abrupt dismissal in 2021, which Sánchez has yet to explain.
Within the Socialist Party, spokesperson Patxi López described the sentence against Ábalos as disproportionate. ERC’s Gabriel Rufián focused instead on Aldama’s suspended sentence, warning that it could encourage others under investigation to cooperate in exchange for leniency. Spain’s anti-corruption prosecutors have defended the use of Aldama’s evidence, saying other elements in the case corroborated his allegations. The evidentiary role of his testimony remains contentious for the defense teams, which have challenged the convictions.
The Supreme Court later rejected the nullity applications filed by Ábalos and García, leaving their convictions and prison sentences in place while preserving their option to seek constitutional review. Ábalos has indicated that he intends to file a constitutional-protection appeal. The applications argued that the proceedings violated Fundamental Rights, but the court upheld the evidentiary basis for the convictions. Aldama’s suspended sentence remains conditional on his compliance with the court’s requirements.
The opposition Popular Party (PP), through Ester Muñoz, criticized the government’s response to the ruling but said it was not currently planning a motion of no confidence because it lacked sufficient parliamentary support. Vox rejected coordination with the PP and accused the government of shifting responsibility onto the judiciary instead of accepting it. The Supreme Court’s decision has renewed debate over the justice system, the benefits available to cooperating defendants and the political response to corruption. The ruling also forms part of a broader case involving allegations of access to senior officials: the court’s findings reportedly included holidays Aldama paid for Ábalos in connection with efforts related to the Air Europa rescue.
