The Spanish Supreme Court has opened a new criminal case against Luis Pérez, widely known as Alvise, marking the sixth active investigation into the eurodeputy and leader of Se Acabó la Fiesta (SALF). The case centers on accusations that Alvise used his Telegram channel to encourage the disruption of public roads and infrastructure during nationwide agricultural protests in early 2024. The court’s Penal Chamber says the actions could amount to aggravated public disorder. It said the messages went beyond political criticism or sectoral mobilization and called for direct action to paralyze basic transport and logistics nodes.
Magistrate Carmen Lamela has been appointed to oversee the proceedings. The Supreme Court said the Telegram posts included repeated appeals to occupy and block highways, urban access points, ports, refineries and distribution centers. The judges noted that the posts also suggested exploiting the limited capacity of police forces and promoted collective coordination to maximize disruption. The court said such calls are not protected by freedom of expression or political participation rights because they amount to incitement to actions that could seriously threaten public order.
Some posts under scrutiny were not authored directly by Alvise but were disseminated through his channel, which the court says he publicly identified with and managed. The investigation began after a Madrid court referred the matter to the Supreme Court in March 2025, following a request for further inquiry into whether Alvise controlled the Telegram account. Subsequent police reports found sufficient evidence linking him to the channel’s administration and public representation. The channel provided a platform for distributing messages to a large audience.
This case adds to a growing list of legal challenges facing Alvise. Previous Supreme Court investigations include alleged cash payments from a cryptocurrency entrepreneur to fund his European election campaign; the spread of a falsified COVID test result concerning Salvador Illa; threats against Valencia’s hate crimes prosecutor, Susana Gisbert; suspected breaches of privacy and harassment involving former SALF candidates Diego Solier and Nora Junco; and alleged threats to Algeciras mayor José Ignacio Landaluce. No other Spanish politician with parliamentary immunity has faced as many simultaneous cases before the Supreme Court.
The proceedings concern separate allegations and do not constitute a single consolidated case. Reported matters before the Supreme Court include alleged illegal financing, defamation, threats and harassment, alongside the accusations over protest-related messages. Each remains an investigation: opening or examining a case does not establish criminal liability or amount to a conviction.
A separate investigation involves Telegram messages directed at Landaluce. Reports say Alvise publicly demanded that the mayor resign and warned that he would publish screenshots and audio recordings concerning alleged misconduct if Landaluce remained in office. Landaluce filed a criminal complaint alleging coercion or threats. In that matter, the Supreme Court reportedly asked the European Parliament on 21 July to suspend Alvise’s parliamentary immunity so the investigation could proceed.
Legal scrutiny of political figures for their online conduct is not new in Spain. Privacy and the exposure of confidential information have previously sparked national debate, including after the leak of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s private agenda and messages highlighted vulnerabilities in legal protections. The incident, covered in detail in a previous report on data leaks and legal loopholes, reflects ongoing tensions between digital activism, privacy and public order in Spanish politics.
Spain’s legal structure grants special protections to members of parliament and the European Parliament, requiring Supreme Court involvement in criminal cases against them. The growing number of cases involving Alvise reflects the increasing influence of digital platforms in political mobilization and the challenges authorities face in distinguishing protected speech from incitement to unlawful action. The proceedings could set precedents for how Spanish courts address the intersection of political activism, social media and public security.
