José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is challenging a second appraisal of jewellery found in his office safe. His defence says the new report may not be needed and questions the neutrality of the expert selected through Joyería Yanes.
The first appraisal put the jewellery's total value at more than 1.3 million euros. Zapatero disputes that figure and is now challenging Judge José Luis Calama's decision to order another examination.
His defence has asked the court to cancel the order. It also wants the removal of the professional appointed through Joyería Yanes.
The issue is simple. The lawyers say the court has not explained why a second assessment is needed when its subject largely overlaps with the first report.
The second court-ordered appraisal is expected to examine more than the jewellery’s price: it must address the composition and purity of the metals and stones, marks and engravings, approximate age, geographical origin and the individual value of each item.
Lawyer Víctor Moreno filed the appeal against Calama's decision. He argues that the order does not state the practical purpose of repeating an examination that has already taken place.
The first valuation came from the jewellery house Ansorena. It examined each piece and set the total at more than 1.3 million euros.
Zapatero rejects its conclusions.
His lawyers also point to comments made by the general director of Joyería Yanes on La Sexta. He said the collection could be worth around two million euros. The defence says that statement raises doubts about the impartiality and objectivity of the expert appointed by the court.
It has therefore asked for his recusal. Spanish media reports, including El Español and El Confidencial, have described the request as an attempt to keep Yanes out of the second assessment.
The first assessment was recorded at 1,323,915 euros. Ansorena carried it out with the participation of the Instituto Gemológico Español, and reports have described the figure as a replacement market value intended for insurance purposes rather than necessarily the sale price at the time of the alleged gift.
The defence has a fallback plan. If the judge keeps the new appraisal, Zapatero's lawyers intend to propose their own expert.
That specialist would attend the examination and help prepare the report alongside the court-appointed professional. The valuation would then become a direct technical contest rather than a one-sided assessment.
Some accounts say the deadline for submitting the original information had already expired. The court then moved toward a second appraisal and opened a new period for collecting details about the items.
The dispute also concerns where the jewellery came from. In a written submission, Zapatero told Calama that the pieces were a personal gift from the late King of Saudi Arabia Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.
According to Zapatero's account, the former Saudi monarch gave him the jewellery at the family residence. Zapatero was living at Palacio de la Moncloa during an official visit to Madrid in 2007.
Infobae, Telemadrid and El Español have attributed that account to his written submission to Judge Calama.
The provenance claim is central.
The defence has supplied documents about the jewellery's origin. It is also challenging the need for a second report and the neutrality of the person chosen to prepare it.
The court must weigh both points. An appraisal carries weight only if its method and independence can withstand scrutiny.
The new examination forms part of the wider investigation linked to the Plus Ultra case. According to reports, Calama is examining possible tax and customs issues connected with the jewellery found in the office safe.
A separate line of inquiry began after the origin of the items was considered insufficiently explained. The defence says the alleged Saudi gift accounts for that provenance.
The valuation is only one part of the case.
For readers tracking legal disputes involving Spain's political figures, this is more than a disagreement over price. The dispute concerns the evidential value of luxury items found in a former leader's office and the safeguards used when a court orders a fresh assessment.
Zapatero is not simply contesting the amount assigned to the jewellery. He is challenging the basis for the new valuation, including the reason for ordering it and the expert's impartiality.
The court must now decide whether Calama's order gives enough reasons for another examination. It must also decide whether the proposed expert can stay involved after the recusal request.
The earlier political coverage shows why legal scrutiny of senior Spanish figures draws attention beyond the immediate file. Here the question is narrower: can the appraisal process address the jewellery's value and the objections raised by its owner in a transparent way?
