The Valencian High Court rejects indicting Mazón and asks the judge to continue investigating

ValenciaThe High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJPV) has rejected indicting former Valencian president Carlos Mazón for his handling of the DANA storm. The decision, announced this Monday, coincides with the position of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which also did not yet see "sufficiently solid data or evidence" against the former head of the Valencian government. However, it differs from the position of the investigating magistrate, who had requested an investigation into the former president for manslaughter, negligent injury, and failure to provide assistance, based on what she described as "negligent inaction." The measure was unanimously agreed upon by the five magistrates of the civil and criminal chamber because they did not find "a solid and objective basis" for the events "constituting a crime." The judges based their ruling on the fact that the former head of the Consell did not hold the position of guarantor of a specific duty or obligation, as required to be investigated for manslaughter by omission. "The president of the Generalitat did not violate any legal regulation regarding emergencies because he has no specific duty in this area," they emphasized.

Salomé Pradas was responsible

The court emphasizes that regional legislation does not assign the head of the Consell (Valencian Government) any specific duties within the framework of civil protection and emergency management regulations. On the contrary, it places sole command of the emergency on the head of the relevant department, in the Valencian case during the fateful day of October 29, 2024, Salomé Pradas. In this regard, the judges stress that the law only contemplates a "transfer of powers" to the Consell, and consequently, "the specific legal duty" to act by "legal obligation" only if the president first determines a catastrophic emergency situation, a decision that, as the ruling underlines, "was never declared by Mr. Mazón Guixot." While not accepting the request for indictment, the court supports the work of the investigating judge and asks her to continue the investigation. "Naturally, the previous decision does not mean that the proceedings cannot continue in the civil and investigative section," they explain. "On the contrary, it can and should proceed to resolve the matter with freedom of judgment," they added.

The court based its decision on previous Supreme Court rulings from July 2025 that dismissed several complaints and lawsuits against the Spanish Prime Minister and various ministers for their handling of the DANA storm. Based on this jurisprudence, it emphasizes that to charge someone with manslaughter by omission, it is essential that there be "strengthened" evidence of criminality and a "specific identification of the conduct." "A suspicion or conjecture is not enough. Possibilities, however close or indirect, are insufficient," the judges stressed, "but rather "well-founded and serious indications" and a "clear and specific" charge with sufficient "evidentiary support."