Five hours after the session of the trial against José Luis Ábalos, seated among the members of the court, ended, Manuel Marchena solemnly entered the noble hall of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation of Spain to be admitted as a member. A protocolary act in which, surrounded by the most prominent names in Spanish justice, he delivered a 45-minute speech on the incorporation of electronic data into criminal proceedings. Listening to him – and taking some photos with their mobile phones – was the spokesperson for Justice of the PP, María Jesús Moro. She arrived alone with ten minutes to spare before the event began and, while looking for her seat, received a particular welcome. Julián Sánchez Melgar – who is also judging José Luis Ábalos and who was State Attorney General under Mariano Rajoy after the death of José Manuel Maza – touched her shoulder to greet her. After a brief conversation, she went to sit down. And – like the entire room – she applauded Manuel Marchena when he finished his speech and when he received the insignia that accredits him as a member.

One of the missions of the Supreme Court in the first three days of the trial against José Luis Ábalos has been to reconstruct the alleged cronyism of two women close to the then Minister of Transport and former organization secretary of the PSOE. They are Jessica Rodríguez, who was his partner for a year and a half; and Claudia Montes, with whom he maintained a "virtual" relationship. The first has admitted that she was receiving payment without going to work – a total of 44,000 euros at Ineco and Tragsatec–. The second woman claims that she did fulfill her duties at Logirail, although others dispute this. Amidst contradictions and labor disputes, several witnesses have tried to shed light on this this week at the high court. "I had a contract, but I wasn't actively working," Jessica Rodríguez acknowledged on Tuesday. Marino Turiel, José Luis Ábalos' lawyer, suspects there is a hidden agreement between her and Víctor de Aldama: "It is very clear that there is a pact and an agreement".

The key witness in the third session of the trial against José Luis Ábalos was Carmen Pano. And her statement followed the script: as she said at the Audiencia Nacional, during the investigation at the Supreme Court and at the Senate's investigation committee, she reiterated and to the Senate's investigation committee, But there was a second delivery that raises more doubts. Carmen Pano first said that the "operation" was that Claudio Rivas made transfers to her accounts and she withdrew the money in cash. And it wasn't until half an hour later that she admitted that in the second case she didn't directly withdraw the money from the bank, but rather a certain Lolo, a "worker or friend" of Claudio Rivas, brought it to her home. She didn't get to count it, but – in theory – there were also 45,000 euros. She took it back to Aldama's office, but later he called her "quite angry" and told her that 10,000 euros were missing. "Therefore, I deduce that there were 35,000 euros," the businesswoman acknowledged. This is a point that only came to light at the end of her statement, after spending a long time equating the two deliveries and without having mentioned this unforeseen event.

In the coming weeks, 34 Supreme Court magistrates will decide whether anyone can judicially intervene against the decision of an adult person who has medical approval to receive euthanasia. The Prosecutor's Office has already conveyed its position to the court: it believes that close family can do so as long as they have an "intense bond" with the affected person, not just a biological relationship. The response that the full Supreme Court eventually gives will set a precedent in a debate that has been open in the courts for a few months and has gained prominence especially with the case of Noelia Castillo, the young woman from Garraf who received assisted death at the end of March, after 20 months of judicial proceedings. The case that the Supreme Court will hear is another, that of Francesc: a 55-year-old man who, after three strokes and a heart attack, suffers serious sequelae in his mobility and speech. Since July 2024, his euthanasia has had judicial approval as well as medical approval and that of the Commission of Guarantee and Evaluation of Catalonia (CGAC), but it has been stalled by a judicial appeal from his father. In fact, his case is what motivated the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJC) in which the magistrates validated that a family can take an euthanasia approved by doctors to court. The Generalitat, which represents Francesc's interests, appealed against this resolution of the TSJC and, therefore, the Supreme Court will now review it after evaluating the arguments of the administration and those of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

“An agreement that had as its object the future commission of crimes as opportunities to commit them arose”. After a year and a half of investigation, 30 years in prison. On the table will be nine crimes, including membership in a criminal organization, bribery, influence peddling, and embezzlement.

The Supreme Court has taken a decisive step and will try José Luis Ábalos, Koldo García, and Víctor de Aldama within a month for the purchase of medical supplies during the pandemic. The high court unanimously rejected all preliminary motions filed by the former Minister of Transport and his former advisor, who will appear in court starting Tuesday, April 7, the day after the Kitchen case trial begins against Jorge Fernández Díaz and his top officials at the Ministry of the Interior during Mariano Rajoy's administration. Three weeks after the Preliminary view of the masks caseThe Supreme Court has closed the door on one of Ábalos and Koldo's main demands: that the case return to the National Court as a result of the Ábalos resigns from his position as a deputyThe 138-page interlocutory ruling reiterates that once a judge opens oral proceedings against a member of parliament—as happened in December, when Ábalos was still a member—the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is "immune to the loss of protected status" and argues that this is a moment that "cannot be left to chance or depend on the whim or will of the accused." It also maintains that the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling—which the defense teams of Ábalos and Koldo challenged—served to "establish a clear criterion in the face of the confusing legal framework." Koldo and Aldama, who have never held protected status, will also be tried by the Supreme Court due to their "inexplicable material connection" with the events under investigation. Furthermore, the seven Supreme Court justices challenge the defense's pride and warn them that granting their request would have "onerous consequences" for the two defendants, who "would see their case delayed." sine die"The trial. The prosecution." He is asking for 24 years in prison. Ábalos received a 19.5-year sentence, Koldo García a 19.5-year sentence, and Aldama a 7-year sentence. They are accused of five crimes: membership in a criminal organization, bribery, embezzlement, influence peddling, and insider trading.

One of US President Donald Trump's key initiatives – perhaps the most important along with mass deportations – It has not passed the Supreme Court's filterAnd this, despite controlling an organization with a clear conservative majority. However, without questioning whether or not it is necessary to impose tariffs on third countries, the justices of the nation's highest court, by a 6-3 vote, consider that Trump overstepped his bounds by imposing tariffs on imports without congressional approval. They highlight one of the shortcomings of the leader of the world's leading power. And it is not the trade deficit he claims to want to combat, but rather the democratic one, by resorting to a law (IEEPA) that gives the president free rein to address "unusual and extraordinary threats" during national emergencies. The justices interpreted that the IEEPA "does not authorize tariffs imposed through executive orders."

Many administrative sanctions may be of dubious validity. Through a ruling, the Supreme Court has tightened the requirements for administrative notifications, which could call into question many sanctioning procedures, tax assessments, and administrative files. Failure to comply with certain criteria in notifications, such as not including even a very short or summarized description of the reason for the notice, can invalidate the procedure, warns Unive Advocats, a specialized law firm. The ruling indicates that the high court's decision can be applied generally, regardless of the procedure or subject matter. This extends its scope to administrative sanctions, tax proceedings, traffic fines, and immigration procedures, among others. According to the lawyers, simply including the file number in the delivery notice is insufficient to interrupt the procedural deadlines. "It is not enough to prove that an attempt was made to notify; it is essential to demonstrate that this attempt met minimum guarantees of providing information to the citizen," such as a description of the reason, the firm emphasizes.

77 days after the Supreme Court will send them to jailJosé Luis Ábalos and Koldo García have temporarily left Soto del Real prison for the preliminary hearing in their trial for the purchase of face masks, which is scheduled to take place in the coming weeks. This unprecedented hearing was established under the law on efficiency in the justice system, which came into effect ten months ago. The former number three of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) and his former advisor at the Ministry of Transport arrived at the Supreme Court in a Spanish police van at 10:30 a.m., half an hour before the scheduled hearing. The third defendant, Víctor de Aldama, also attended, although he is free and had not made any statements. For the first time, all three appeared together in the dock and faced the seven judges who will preside over their case.

The Supreme Court has ordered two gynecologists to pay €35,000 in damages to a patient for using forceps and vacuum extraction during her delivery without her consent or prior notification. The ruling clarifies that, even without medical negligence, the failure to inform her beforehand about the instruments to be used and the associated risks violated her right to informed consent. The woman who brought the case to the Supreme Court to establish this precedent was 29 years old in March 2014 when she gave birth to her son in a Madrid hospital. She had received prenatal care at the same hospital in the preceding months, and all tests had come back normal. After three hours of contractions, the doctors attending her during the delivery used a vacuum extractor and forceps to deliver the baby. The postpartum period in the hospital went well, and after a few days, the woman was discharged. However, a year later, she was still experiencing pain in the episiotomy scar from her delivery. After trying various treatments, the pelvic pain persisted, and when her son was three years old, she filed a malpractice lawsuit.

The scandals surrounding the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party), involving corruption and instances of gender-based harassment, are not only deeply concerning because they call into question the integrity of the political system and undermine public trust, but also foreshadow an increasingly likely shift in power towards the far right. To this context must be added judicial decisions incompatible with the rule of law, to put it mildly. Some experts, such as former magistrate José Antonio Martín Pallín, have openly spoken of judicial coups. The most grotesque recent episode has been the Supreme Court's ruling that convicted former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz after a highly substandard investigation. The five justices who voted in favor of the conviction belong to the most conservative wing of the judiciary.

Pedro Sánchez's government is increasingly dependent on the courts. Anxiety is spreading among the Socialist ranks, especially after a week that has brought two new developments: five arrests These events have brought to light two new cases—which remain secret—and a Civil Guard report that once again implicates José Luis Ábalos. These are ongoing investigations into issues that strike at the heart of the Spanish president's political roadmap and the origins of his rise to power. Of the five arrested, the National Court has released former Socialist Party member Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández Guerrero, former president of SEPI (State Holding Company for Industrial Participations), and Basque businessman Antxon Alonso, owner of the company Servinabar and a friend of Santos Cerdán, former PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) organizational secretary. All five were released with precautionary measures (passport confiscation and periodic court appearances) after the prosecution did not request their imprisonment.

Judges rarely see the consequences of their decisions firsthand. And this Thursday was one of those days. Most of the Supreme Court judges that Álvaro García Ortiz was sentenced They have witnessed, from the front row, the inauguration of their successor as Attorney General of the StateTeresa Peramato. 786 days later, the high court closed the circle and reaped the rewards of an unprecedented ruling that will mark a turning point.

The Supreme Court is demanding a €60,000 bail from former minister José Luis Ábalos and his former advisor Koldo García. both in pretrial detention for the past two weeks, and sends them to trial along with businessman Víctor de Aldama for organized crime. This was ordered in a ruling this Thursday by Judge Leopoldo Puente, who is investigating the case of alleged irregular commissions in the purchase of face masks during the pandemic. The judge, according to the ruling, has agreed to open oral proceedings against the three defendants for the crimes of membership in a criminal organization, continuous bribery, use and exploitation of privileged information, influence peddling, embezzlement, falsification of documents, and abuse of power. This comes after the appeals court rejected Ábalos and Koldo's appeals this Wednesday and upheld their indictment. In parallel with the opening of the oral proceedings, the investigating judge ordered that Ábalos and Koldo remain in prison and demanded that they pay 60,000 euros to "guarantee any financial liabilities that may ultimately be imposed on them." If this amount is not provided within five business days, the Judge orders the seizure of assets equivalent to the bail. In Aldama, the alleged facilitator of the scheme, Puente maintains the obligation to appear in court every fifteen days, the confiscation of his passport, and the prohibition against leaving Spain.

There are fraudulent rulings and rulings that are inherently fraudulent. The Supreme Court's ruling that convicts the Attorney General falls into the latter category. This court, boasting of its extensive expertise and the high legal caliber of some of its members, has drafted a decision that appears technically sound, but which falters when it addresses the core issue it is meant to resolve.

The dirty war of justice, or lawfare, is hardly news anymore in Spain. Let's be clear: it makes headlines and leads the news, but it's anything but a secret or a surprise. Its existence is acknowledged, more or less openly, by various prosecutors and judges whose ethics still allow them to feign outrage at what is truly a scandal, unfolding before everyone's eyes. The latest case is the conviction of Álvaro García Ortiz, the former Attorney General of Spain, whose sentence was delayed for almost three weeks and whose legal reasoning has once again caused a stir, at least among the progressive wing of the Spanish judiciary. The fact that the conviction stems from a power struggle between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the partner of the President of the Community of Madrid makes everything sadly understandable. That Ayuso is untouchable, having weathered several scandals that should have had legal consequences (during the pandemic alone: the sale of medical masks, the rushed construction of the Isabel Zendal hospital, the deaths of over seven thousand people in Madrid's nursing homes due to the so-called "protocols of shame"; she should testify) is a well-known fact. We now know that her boyfriend and her advisor are also untouchable.

Nineteen days after announcing the verdict, the Supreme Court has finally published its ruling justifying the two-year disqualification of the Attorney General. It considers that Álvaro García Ortiz committed the crime of "disclosure of confidential information," since, according to the judges who signed the ruling—five of the seven who comprised the panel—there is a body of "solid" evidence to assert that he, "or someone in his immediate circle with his knowledge," leaked to journalists a statement by Ayuso requesting a plea bargain and admitting to tax fraud. It is surprising that after so many days, the ruling is full of conditionals and suppositions that the judges consider clear indications. The appearance of the phrase "or someone in his immediate circle" already seems to demonstrate that they were unable to determine exactly who did it, and elsewhere in the ruling they also indicate that the fact that he deleted the WhatsApp messages from that day, for example, is, in their view, proof that he wanted to hide what he had done. In this respect, the numerous conditional statements and the overall tone of the ruling are worrying. This is especially true because the dissenting opinion of the two progressive judges dismantles these arguments, asserting that, in fact, there is no clear evidence directly incriminating García Ortiz.

"We must condemn and do condemn Álvaro García Ortiz as the perpetrator of a crime of disclosing confidential information." Nineteen days after announcing the sentence, the Supreme Court has made the sentence public that consummates an unprecedented institutional clash and that disqualifies the Attorney General of the State for two yearsThe court, by a majority of five votes to two, relied on a set of "solid, consistent and conclusive" evidence to "necessarily" affirm that he or "a person in his immediate circle and with his knowledge" leaked the Cadena SER The email from the lawyer of Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner. The 181-page ruling considers that Álvaro García Ortiz had a "reinforced duty of confidentiality" which he "violated without justification." In contrast, the progressive justices Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo, who issued a dissenting opinion, maintain that it "has not been proven" that the Attorney General was the one who leaked the information. Álvaro García Ortiz will be replaced by Teresa Peramatowho was formally appointed this Tuesday and will take office this week.

The Supreme Court reported two weeks ago that disqualified the Attorney General of the StateThe decision was communicated, but the full text of the ruling—including the reasons for the conviction—was to be released later. The urgency with which the judges deliberated, barely a week after the trial ended, surprised everyone. Since then, every morning the question lingers: will this be the day we learn the verdict? But it still hasn't arrived. And this has prompted multiple interpretations: Supreme Court sources consulted by ARA maintain that the delay "is neither extraordinary nor unusual," while the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF) expresses "deep concern" and denounces "institutional mistreatment." Be that as it may, the reality is that Álvaro García Ortiz resigned from his position and the Spanish government initiated the replacement process, which will culminate in the coming days with the formal appointment of her replacementTeresa Peramato, in fact, could take office before the content of the sentence against her predecessor is known.

The 180 meters separating the Supreme Court from the National Court have never seemed so short. Last Thursday, while José Luis Ábalos faced the possibility of being sent to prison by Leopoldo Puente in the case concerning the purchase of face masks – as It ended up happening—Víctor de Aldama testified before Ismael Moreno regarding contracts awarded by the Canary Islands government during the pandemic; an alleged corruption scheme that has led to multiple parallel investigations with interconnected links. So much so, that even the lawyers involved are still unclear about the number of ongoing cases and their scope. We're taking it one step at a time.