Three judges from the Audiencia Provincial in Madrid have ordered two investigations into deaths in elderly care homes to be consolidated, reigniting the long-running dispute over how to handle the sprawling ‘caso residencias’ cases. Lawyers representing affected families announced the decision on Wednesday. That directly contradicts an earlier ruling by another section of the same court, which rejected merging cases just months ago.
The latest order affects investigations led by the Juzgado 5 de Móstoles and the Juzgado 3 de Madrid. The judges said similarities between the cases make consolidation necessary to prevent conflicting verdicts. On 2 July 2026, LegalToday reported a related procedural development: the Audiencia Provincial’s Seventh Section ordered the Móstoles court to withdraw from a pandemic-related care-home investigation so it could be unified with another proceeding. Such an inhibición means the court cedes jurisdiction rather than continuing the inquiry independently. The Seventh Section’s order is distinct from the April decision by the court’s First Section, showing that different panels have taken different approaches to consolidation.
Until now, the ‘caso residencias’ investigations have been fragmented, with more than 80 separate cases spread across courts in the Madrid region. The patchwork approach has led to delays and overlapping efforts, frustrating families seeking accountability for their relatives’ deaths. Consolidation can bring related evidence into a shared proceeding and reduce duplication, while leaving courts to determine which allegations and defendants are legally connected.
In April, the First Section of the Audiencia Provincial ruled that more than 20 ongoing cases should remain separate, rejecting calls for a so-called macrocausa: a single, unified investigation. The decision dealt a blow to associations representing the deceased’s families, who argue that the deaths share a common political cause and should be examined together. The newer ruling has renewed efforts to consolidate related proceedings, although its immediate effect concerns the cases before the court, not an automatic merger of every investigation across the region.
The legal dispute reflects wider tensions in Spain’s judicial system over how to address large-scale incidents with impressive social impact. Cases are assigned to courts based on geographic jurisdiction, while campaigners argue that separate proceedings can make it harder to examine broader patterns. Families and advocacy groups have called the disputed pandemic-era measures the “protocolos de la vergüenza,” arguing that they contributed to unequal access to hospital care for care-home residents. Marea de Residencias continues to seek clarification and accountability; those campaigners’ claims remain distinct from findings established by a final criminal judgment.
The controversy over residential care has continued alongside the court cases. In October 2026, ElPlural reported that Marea de Residencias raised concerns about possible transfers at Casaverde Navalcarnero, where families with privately funded places were said by the group to have been given a month to coordinate transfers. Madrid’s regional government said it was false that the facility would evict residents or require them to leave their contracted places. That separate dispute does not determine the criminal investigations, but illustrates the continuing public scrutiny of care arrangements for elderly and vulnerable residents.
The court order immediately affects only two cases, but it could shape arguments for consolidating other related proceedings. Families still seeking answers after years of fragmented investigations will be watching how courts apply the differing approaches taken by the Audiencia Provincial’s sections. Legal professionals and advocacy groups will be watching, too. Similar controversies over sensitive information and judicial transparency have also arisen in Spain, including after a leak of confidential data involving a former prime minister sparked national debate. Details were covered in a previous report on legal gaps and privacy concerns.
