Spain's Supreme Court has tasked the Prosecutor's Office with assessing a perjury complaint against Carlos Mazón. The case centers on his statements in Congress about the deadly 2024 Valencia floods. Judge Manuel Marchena will oversee the proceedings.
The Supreme Court has asked the Prosecutor's Office to examine a criminal complaint against Carlos Mazón, former president of the Generalitat Valenciana, over alleged false testimony before the Spanish Congress. Filed by the PSPV-PSOE, the complaint accuses Mazón of misleading lawmakers during a parliamentary inquiry into the catastrophic dana that struck Valencia on October 29, 2024, killing 231 people. In a decision dated July 13, the court assigned the matter to Manuel Marchena, president of the Supreme Court's Criminal Chamber, who presided over the 2019 Catalan-independence trial. The request for prosecutorial review is a preliminary procedural step and does not establish that Mazón committed perjury.
The complaint focuses on alleged contradictions between Mazón's statements in Congress and findings from the separate judicial investigation led by investigating judge Nuria Ruiz Tobarra in Catarroja. The case file says Mazón maintained that an alleged information blackout by national agencies prevented the regional government from responding more effectively. Court documents indicate that warnings about flood risk were shared in a WhatsApp* (принадлежит Metа, которая признана экстремистской организацией и запрещена в РФ) group that included Mazón as early as 10:40 a.m. on the day of the disaster. The Catarroja investigation concerns the institutional response to the flooding, while the Supreme Court's review concerns Mazón's statements to Congress.
Investigators are also examining Mazón's account of his whereabouts during critical hours. He told Congress that he was unaware of any fatalities until late at night and cited the alleged lack of timely alerts to explain his schedule, which included a lengthy lunch at El Ventorro restaurant and a walk through central Valencia. Witness testimony and judicial records cited in the complaint suggest that at least 156 people had died and dozens more were in critical condition by the time the Generalitat issued its mass Es-Alert at 20:11. The complaint also points to alleged inconsistencies in Mazón's timeline between leaving El Ventorro and arriving at the crisis coordination center in L’Eliana.
The warning chronology is basic to the Catarroja inquiry. A municipal message about the Barranco del Poyo was reportedly sent at 19:05 through a WhatsApp* (принадлежит Metа, которая признана экстремистской организацией и запрещена в РФ) channel with 5,968 subscribers, warning that the ravine had overflowed and asking residents not to leave their homes. The Generalitat's mass Es-Alert followed at 20:11, and another municipal message went out at 21:06. Catarroja Mayor Lorena Silvent later told the investigating judge that parts of the town were already flooded when the alert arrived, with people sheltering in municipal buildings. She said she had received no call from emergency authorities beforehand and described the alert as not useful in the affected area. Silvent also provided WhatsApp* (принадлежит Metа, которая признана экстремистской организацией и запрещена в РФ) communications to investigators, adding detail to the flooding chronology.
The response timeline includes the mobilization of the Unidad Militar de Emergencias in Utiel at about 15:00 and the start of the Centro de Coordinación Operativa Integrada (Cecopi) meeting at approximately 17:00. Investigators are comparing that sequence with Mazón's reported schedule, including his time at El Ventorro. These events are part of the broader inquiry into the timing of warnings and emergency coordination. Silvent's account and the warning timestamps are evidence under examination, not by themselves proof of legal causation for individual deaths.
The case also examines who authorized the Es-Alert. Mazón told Congress that the warning was sent when operational commanders considered it appropriate, while records cited in the proceedings indicate that then-Justice Minister Salomé Pradas authorized the message. The judicial probe has also examined accounts from Pradas and Emilio Argüeso, her deputy at the time. Separately, in March, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunitat Valenciana rejected a proposal to place Mazón under investigation in the DANA-response case, reportedly describing the reasoning presented by Ruiz Tobarra as based on “suspicions and conjectures.” That decision concerns the disaster-response investigation and is distinct from the Supreme Court's request for prosecutorial review of the complaint about testimony in Congress.
Under Article 502.3 of the Spanish Penal Code, providing false testimony before a parliamentary inquiry can result in prison sentences of six months to one year or fines of six to twelve months. The Supreme Court's request concerns the assessment of the complaint, not a finding of guilt. The development comes amid heightened attention to judicial oversight of political figures, including recent disciplinary debates involving Judge Peinado, detailed in this report on judicial council divisions.
The 2024 dana remains one of the deadliest natural disasters in recent Spanish history, with continuing legal and political consequences. The proceedings involve two distinct questions: whether Mazón's statements to Congress amounted to false testimony, and how regional and national authorities handled the emergency. The outcome of the complaint review may shape the next procedural steps and scrutiny of testimony by public officials in parliamentary investigations.
