The private and popular prosecution, the Madrid Bar Association, will appear to ratify the respective complaints

The judge of the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJM who is processing the complaint of Alberto González Amador has summoned the parties for May 24 after initiating preliminary proceedings against the chief prosecutor of Madrid, María Pilar Rodríguez Fernández, and the prosecutor Julián Salto Torres for the alleged commission of a crime of revealing secrets by an official after the publication of a statement about the tax dispute of the boyfriend of the Madrid president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso. The judge wants to know who was the head of the Prosecutor’s Office who approved the decision to disseminate the statement.

The opening of the proceedings takes place after its admission for processing by the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Court, on May 7. According to an order, to which Europa Press had access, the Court now agrees as its first steps to summon the parties appearing as private and popular accusations – Colegio de la Abogacía de Madrid (ICAM) – on May 24 at the purposes of ratifying the respective complaints.

The alleged revelation of secrets is related to the information note released by the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office in which it was reported on the exchange of emails between the lawyer of the partner of the Madrid regional president and the prosecutor related to the investigation into alleged tax fraud. .

Among the proceedings, the magistrate agrees to validate the press articles provided by the complaining parties, in order to prove their reality and authentication of said publication and orders to send a letter “to the media that have published them.”

It does so “so that, by the corresponding media, the reality and authenticity can be certified, with an expression of the date and time, if applicable, in which the publication was made, with identification of the journalist or author of the journalistic review in question”.

It is also requested to indicate “who were the specific natural persons who intervened in the decision to make public said press release and the highest person in charge (in rank) of the prosecutor’s career who agreed or gave approval to the decision of spread the statement.”

Likewise, it requests that a list and copy of the original support be sent of all the communications maintained by the Prosecutor’s Office (emails received and sent) with Alberto González Amador’s lawyer on the occasion of his defense before and after the case was made public. release.

The Chamber states that “the judgment of admission of a complaint for processing must be highlighted that it neither prejudges in any way nor conditions the procedural outcome of the case.”

“It is exclusively a question, from an indicative point of view, of examining the possible initial criminal appearance of the facts that are charged in the complaint, and provided that there is some element that rationally supports its verisimilitude, beyond the simple statement of the existence of a crime without any objective support,” he points out.


The admission of the complaint occurred after the report against prosecutor María de la O Silva, who urged its inadmissibility as it lacked criminal relevance.

In the order of admission, the Chamber considered that “without the admission of a complaint being ever understood as an act of advance imputation, nor a finalized qualification of the facts, the true scope of all the facts related in the writing of the complaint”.

“Only in this way can an essential purpose of the summary be fulfilled, as contemplated in article 299 of the LeCrim, and which consists of the determination of all the circumstances that may influence the classification of the facts, provided that these are indicatively criminal in nature,” he pointed out.


The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJ of Madrid did not agree with the Public Ministry when it considered that the complaint should be inadmissible, given that, in its opinion, “the facts reported therein are atypical.”

The judges, on the other hand, understand that this argument limits the debate from a very specific perspective that does not seem to encompass all the projections of the criminal sphere of the revelation of secrets.

The magistrates added that “in its report the Public Prosecutor’s Office gives reasons for why it provided an information note” in reference to the fact that it was carried out “to get to know certain information.”

Furthermore, the Prosecutor’s Office denied that this information note contained anything that was not known, stating that it was “empowered by its own organic regulations by linking to the free exercise of freedom of information the duty to convey the newsworthy fact to society.”

Thus, the Chamber noted, “it is necessary to analyze whether the duty of confidentiality and secrecy inherent to criminal proceedings has been violated, which includes pre-procedural proceedings carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and this requires, in its opinion, an investigation that can only be adequately addressed through the timely investigation of the case.”