The State Legal Service has accused former Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz of a central role in planning and overseeing the so-called Kitchen operation. In its closing arguments, the legal team said the operation was designed in 2013 to monitor Luis Bárcenas, the former treasurer of the Partido Popular (PP), and obtain sensitive documents that could implicate senior party officials. It described the alleged scheme as an attempt to obstruct the Gürtel investigation, which was under way at the time.
State lawyers told the court that the operation was conducted without judicial authorization and relied on public resources, including reserved funds allegedly used to recruit Bárcenas’s driver as an informant. The alleged surveillance placed police personnel and Interior Ministry resources outside the ordinary judicial process while the Audiencia Nacional was investigating Bárcenas. The State Legal Service described the operation as a way to protect senior officials from potentially damaging disclosures and called it “intolerable.” These are allegations presented in court; the judges will determine the defendants’ criminal responsibility.
The case centers on whether state security resources were diverted to protect party interests. Bárcenas was considered a potential source of damaging information about the PP and its financing, while the alleged operation sought to locate or secure documents connected to the party and the Gürtel inquiry. The lawyer representing Bárcenas argued that silencing him was viewed as impressive to limiting harm to both the party and the government. Former prime minister Mariano Rajoy testified as a witness; testimony in that capacity does not itself establish criminal responsibility.
Government figures have also made allegations about the operation’s political chain of command. Digital Change Minister Óscar López told Televisión Española, in remarks reported by EFE after Rajoy’s testimony, that recordings and testimony pointed to instructions from the PP leadership. López accused the party of using state resources “to pursue the person pursuing the crime, eliminate evidence or shield corruption.” Those remarks are a political position, not a judicial finding. The Audiencia Nacional’s assessment of the evidence and each defendant’s role remains decisive.
The Kitchen trial was heard by the Audiencia Nacional, which also handled proceedings connected to Bárcenas and the Gürtel network. After the defendants’ final submissions, the trial concluded in July 2026 and the case was sent for sentencing. Former police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, associated with the alleged police apparatus, said in his final intervention: “The truth will come to light.” The court’s forthcoming judgment will establish the legally determined account of the operation and whether the charges against Fernández Díaz and other defendants are proved.
The proceedings have renewed scrutiny of the use of reserved funds and police intelligence work. They have also raised questions about the separation between executive security structures and judicial investigations. The basic institutional question is whether public resources intended for state purposes were used to pursue partisan objectives. The case forms part of a wider history of corruption investigations that reshaped Spanish politics: the Gürtel proceedings brought convictions of senior PP figures and contributed to major political consequences for the party. The Kitchen judgment is now the next basic legal key stage in determining accountability for the alleged operation.
The debate over the boundaries between state power and party interests has also surfaced in other Spanish political controversies, including the government’s approval of a major bailout for Tubos Reunidos following pressure from political allies. The cases concern different matters, but both have prompted questions about political influence and the use of public authority.
