The legal battle over the investigation into José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's jewels has escalated, with the Anticorruption Prosecutor and the State Legal Service opposing the former prime minister's attempt to exclude the Partido Popular (PP)-led popular prosecution from the case. The jewels inquiry is a separate investigative line within the broader Plus Ultra proceedings before Spain's Audiencia Nacional, overseen by investigating judge José Luis Calama. The dispute reflects an ongoing debate over who can participate in the country's high-profile criminal investigations.
Zapatero's defense argued that the popular prosecution, spearheaded by the PP, lacks legal standing to participate in the investigation into jewels seized from his office. Prosecutors countered that barring its participation would prematurely restrict the exercise of popular action, particularly before the alleged offenses have been legally classified. The State Legal Service, representing the Tax Agency as a potentially affected party, echoed that position. It pointed to the dual dimension of alleged crimes against the public treasury: the Tax Agency's specific financial interest and the broader public interest in the integrity of the tax system. The submissions address the right to participate in the proceedings. They do not determine whether any crime was committed.
The case took a new turn in early June, after police found the jewelry in a safe at Zapatero's office during a search on 19 May 2026. Judge Calama opened a separate line of inquiry into possible tax offenses and smuggling, examining the jewels' origin and whether they were properly declared for customs and tax purposes. The collection was initially valued at approximately €1.3 million. The seized pieces were described as white-gold jewelry adorned with sapphires and emeralds, comprising three necklaces and three bracelets, plus three rings and three pairs of earrings. Their estimated value was €1.2 million. Zapatero has reportedly maintained that the jewelry was a gift from Saudi Arabia in 2007; its provenance and treatment remain under investigation.
The inquiry also raises the question of whether the pieces were official gifts that should have been recorded or transferred to the state. Calama has requested the official record of institutional gifts to the Presidency of the Government during Zapatero's terms, covering the 2004-2008 and 2008-2011 legislatures. Anticorruption prosecutors have reportedly considered whether the alleged failure to hand over the jewelry after Zapatero left office in 2012 could raise a separate issue concerning public property. These are investigative and prosecutorial positions, not findings of liability.
The jewels inquiry remains procedurally connected to the wider Plus Ultra case, which concerns the €53 million public rescue loan granted to the airline in 2021 and allegations of influence peddling and money laundering, alongside claims of document falsification and criminal organization. The court's separate examination of the jewelry focuses on its provenance and ownership, as well as possible tax or customs consequences. Zapatero has also sought judicial cooperation with Saudi Arabia over his account that the pieces came from the Saudi monarchy.
Debates over the legitimacy of popular prosecution are not new in Spain. Similar controversies have arisen in other high-profile cases, including the recent dispute involving Vicent Mompó, where legal standing and the boundaries of testimony were also at issue. The case against Mompó drew attention to the complexities of court participation and political accountability, as detailed in this report on legal action considered by Compromís.
Spain's system of popular prosecution allows political parties and civic groups to participate in criminal proceedings alongside prosecutors and affected parties. Supporters see it as a means of public oversight, particularly in cases involving alleged corruption or misuse of public funds. Disputes over standing also raise questions about the limits of participation and the risk of politicizing proceedings. The court's decision on the PP's role in the Plus Ultra jewels inquiry will determine whether it can remain a party to this case, while questions about the jewels remain unresolved.
