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 devastating floods. The decision, announced this Monday, aligns with the Public Prosecutor's position, which argued a few days ago that there is no "sufficiently solid evidence or indications" against the former head of the Valencian government. However, it contradicts the opinion of the investigating magistrate, Nuria Ruiz Tobarra, who had requested an investigation into the politician from Alicante for manslaughter, negligent injury, and failure to provide assistance, citing what she described as "negligent inaction." The measure was unanimously agreed upon by the five judges of the civil and criminal chamber. They based their decision on the fact that, during the floods, the PP leader did not hold the position of guarantor of a duty nor did he have specific obligations as required to be investigated for manslaughter by omission. "The President of the Generalitat did not commit an infraction (...) in matters of emergencies because he has no specific duty in this area," the resolution emphasizes. In this regard, it adds that the investigating judge was only able to demonstrate suspicions and not facts with a "solid and objective basis" of conduct that "constitutes a crime."

The decision by the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) increases the difficulty for Ruiz Tobarra in proving Mazón's possible involvement in the Generalitat's inaction, as it closes the door to summoning the former president to testify unless new evidence is discovered. The former head of the Consell has strived to maintain this secrecy, taking advantage of his protected status—which prevents him from being investigated by an ordinary court—as demonstrated by the fact that he has refused the investigating judge's invitation to appear voluntarily as a witness on three separate occasions. This opacity has been reinforced by the actions of Mazón's former chief of staff and current advisor in the former president's office, José Manuel Cuenca, who deleted the call log and messages exchanged with his boss from his mobile phone on October 29, 2024. Although not accepting the request for indictment, the court did support Ruiz Tobarra's work and asked him to continue investigating. "The decision (...) does not mean that the proceedings cannot continue in the civil and investigative section," they explain. "On the contrary, it can and should continue to resolve the matter with freedom of judgment," they emphasize.

Salomé Pradas was responsible

The court based its decision on Supreme Court rulings from July 2025, which 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 negligence, "a mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient" and requires "well-founded and serious evidence" and a "clear and specific" accusation with sufficient "evidentiary support." The five judges of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) also point out that regional legislation does not assign the head of the Valencian Government (Consell) specific duties within the framework of civil protection and emergency management regulations, and that it places sole command of the emergency on the head of the relevant department, in the Valencian case during that tragic day, Salomé Pradas. In this regard, they emphasize that the law only provides for a "transfer of powers" to the president if he first declares a state of catastrophic emergency, a decision which they stress "was never declared by Mr. Mazón Guixot" and which ultimately proved key in exonerating the Alicante politician from any responsibility.

Without proof of Mazón's orders

The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) has also rejected Ruiz Tobarra's argument that, in his request for indictment, he asserted that it was necessary to investigate the former president for his lack of "coordination" within the regional administration—a task that legislation entrusts to the head of the Valencian Government—as the Provincial Court of Valencia pointed out a few months ago. Unlike the investigating judge and the Provincial Court, the five judges of the civil and criminal chamber believe that a lack of coordination among the regional ministries cannot be attributed to the "emergencies." Regarding the possible involvement of the former president in sending the ES-Alert, they argue that the judge's considerations "are purely conjecture," given that neither the tone of the messages sent to the regional minister by Mazón's chief of staff, José Manuel Cuenca, nor the close personal and professional relationship between the two, can be considered sufficient to "verify the existence of any evidence, much less solid evidence, of the then-president of the Generalitat's involvement in sending the alert."

This Monday, the ruling was assessed by Salomé Pradas's defense team, which highlighted an element of the document that could affect the former regional minister's legal future. The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) emphasized that conclusive evidence will also be necessary in the case of the former head of Emergency Services and his former deputy, Emilio Argüeso. Specifically, the five members of the civil and criminal chamber stated that it is necessary to demand the existence of "concrete and precise" evidence to demonstrate that "the measures adopted or not adopted" by the Valencian Government were decisive in the 230 deaths, and that the so-called "causal link" "cannot be established in generic or vague terms."

File of the lawsuit against the judge

Although from a very different perspective, victims' associations have also found positive elements in the ruling, celebrating that the investigation will remain in the hands of the judge in Catarroja and will not be transferred to the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. This same court also rejected today the lawsuit filed against the judge for the alleged involvement in the case of her husband, Judge Jorge Martínez Ribera. The court considered that the far-right agitator Rubén Gisbert and four families who filed the complaint against the judge had not provided any evidence to support the commission of the crimes and expressed doubts about the origin of the audio recordings submitted as evidence. Furthermore, they emphasized that, in any case, these recordings would reflect a "procedural irregularity" that should be assessed within the same proceedings. Like the Basque Country High Court, the Public Prosecutor's Office has also argued that the events described by the far-right lawyer "do not reach the threshold of criminal wrongdoing" and do not constitute any of the crimes with which Tobarra has been charged: coercion, disclosure of secrets, usurpation of public office, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and failure to prosecute certain crimes.