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 formally requested the Prosecutor's Office to examine a criminal complaint against Carlos Mazón, former president of the Generalitat Valenciana, for allegedly providing false testimony before the Spanish Congress. The move follows a filing by the PSPV-PSOE, who accuse Mazón of misleading lawmakers during a parliamentary inquiry into the catastrophic dana that struck Valencia on October 29, 2024, resulting in 231 deaths. The court's decision, dated July 13, assigns Judge Manuel Marchena—known for presiding over the 2019 Catalan independence trial—to lead the case.
The complaint focuses on contradictions between Mazón's statements in Congress and findings from the ongoing judicial investigation led by Judge Nuria Ruiz Tobarra in Catarroja. According to the case file, Mazón maintained that a so-called 'information blackout' from national agencies prevented the regional government from responding more effectively to the disaster. However, court documents indicate that warnings about the flood risk were shared in a WhatsApp group including Mazón as early as 10:40 a.m. on the day of the tragedy.
Further scrutiny surrounds Mazón's account of his whereabouts during critical hours. He claimed in Congress that he was not aware of fatalities until late at night and justified his schedule, which included a lengthy lunch at El Ventorro restaurant and a walk through central Valencia, by citing the alleged lack of timely alerts. Yet, witness testimony and judicial records suggest that by the time the Generalitat issued the Es Alert mass notification at 20:11, at least 156 people had already died and dozens more were in critical condition. The complaint also highlights inconsistencies in Mazón's timeline between leaving El Ventorro and arriving at the crisis coordination center in L’Eliana, with evidence placing him elsewhere during key moments.
The case also examines the delayed issuance of the Es Alert mobile warning, a point of contention in the investigation. While Mazón told Congress the alert was sent when operational commanders deemed it appropriate, records show that then-Justice Minister Salomé Pradas authorized the message, despite initially claiming she had no direct role in emergency management. The judicial probe has systematically challenged the exculpatory narrative presented by both Mazón and Pradas, as well as Emilio Argüeso, her deputy at the time.
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 involvement signals the seriousness of the allegations, especially given the scale of the disaster and the political stakes involved. This development comes amid heightened attention to judicial oversight of political figures, as seen in other recent high-profile cases such as the 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, prompting ongoing legal, political, and administrative fallout. The Supreme Court's review of the perjury complaint against Mazón could have significant implications for accountability in crisis management and the standards of testimony expected from public officials. The outcome may also influence future parliamentary investigations and the handling of emergency communications in Spain.
