The Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office has opposed former minister José Luis Ábalos and his former adviser Koldo García’s efforts to overturn their Supreme Court convictions. Both men, sentenced to 24 years and three months and 19 years and eight months in prison, respectively, have filed motions for annulment. Prosecutor Alejandro Luzón described the motions as “doomed to fail,” arguing that they repeat arguments the court has already rejected.
In a written submission accessed by EL PAÍS, Luzón said the motions for annulment, required before an appeal to the Constitutional Court, fall outside the intended scope of this legal remedy. He criticized Ábalos and García for seeking to make the Supreme Court revisit its reasoning, despite the court having already given a detailed and reasoned response in its original ruling.
Luzón also argued that it would be procedurally improper for the judges to reconsider the same arguments. Dissatisfaction with the court’s previous answers, he said, does not justify reopening the debate. He requested that Ábalos and García be ordered to pay legal costs, as their complaints repeat points already examined and rejected.
Víctor de Aldama, identified as the facilitator in the case and sentenced to four and a half years in prison but spared incarceration, has also asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Ábalos and García’s appeals. His position aligns with that of the prosecution, which argues that the original verdict should remain unchanged.
The case has drawn attention to the procedures surrounding high-profile corruption convictions in Spain. The Supreme Court’s decision is considered final unless the Constitutional Court finds a violation of Fundamental Rights. Motions for annulment are a necessary step before such an appeal, but rarely succeed. Other recent cases involving public officials, including scrutiny of anti-corruption units and recruitment processes in regional administrations, have also faced impressive legal hurdles. A recent investigation into hiring practices in Valencia was closed without finding irregularities, while questions about procedural rigor remain a recurring theme in Spanish justice.
Spain’s legal system requires all ordinary remedies to be exhausted before constitutional appeals are considered. The prosecution’s insistence that the Supreme Court’s ruling stand highlights the limited options available to people convicted in high-profile corruption cases. The outcome of the process will be closely watched, as it may set a precedent for future appeals involving senior officials and their advisers.
