The Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court has decided not to admit and therefore dismiss the complaint filed by the PP against the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, for lack of evidence of wrongdoing in the appointment of Dolores Delgado as Prosecutor of the Togada or Military Chamber, in 2022. The Court concluded that in this case there is no evidence of the crimes of administrative malfeasance or illegal appointment. The Administrative-Contentious Chamber of the Supreme Court had previously considered, unanimously, that the appointment constituted an exercise of “abuse of power”, as García Ortiz’s only purpose was to promote Delgado, who had previously been his deputy at the Attorney General’s Office. The PP argued that García Ortiz proposed Delgado’s promotion in October 2022 as a personal gesture of gratitude, going against the opinion of the Prosecution Council, and causing harm to the integrity of the institution.
The Supreme Court’s ruling stated that the complaint filed did not reveal any evidence of criminal activity to justify a criminal proceeding. Regarding the alleged crime of malfeasance (issuing an unjust ruling knowingly), the Court noted that the Attorney General did not issue a ruling but merely made a proposal; the actual appointment was made by the government of Pedro Sánchez based on that proposal. The Court dismissed the accusation of illegal appointment because Delgado met the formal requirements for the position, having twenty years of service and belonging to the second category of the prosecutor’s career. The Court emphasized that the previous ruling of the Administrative-Contentious Chamber on ‘abuse of power’ could not be automatically transferred to the realm of criminal liability for malfeasance.
The Chamber that issued the ruling was composed of President and rapporteur, Manuel Marchena, and Justices Juan Ramón Berdugo, Antonio del Moral, Susana Polo, and Carmen Lamela. In a previous ruling in November, the Court had annulled Delgado’s appointment due to ‘abuse of power’. However, by that time, Delgado had already been appointed to a different position, as Prosecutor for Human Rights and Democratic Memory in the same top category, rendering the annulment practically ineffective. Despite this, the legality of Delgado’s current appointment is also under appeal, and the Supreme Court has yet to make a decision on the matter.
The controversy surrounding the appointment of Dolores Delgado as Prosecutor has raised concerns about potential abuse of power and political favoritism within the Attorney General’s Office. The PP’s complaint accused Álvaro García Ortiz of unlawfully promoting Delgado to repay a personal debt of gratitude, causing damage to the institution’s credibility and undermining the principles of equality, merit, and capability. While the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the issue continues to highlight the importance of transparency and accountability in the appointment process of high-ranking officials in the legal system. The legal implications of the Court’s ruling on future appointments and the reputation of the parties involved remain to be seen.
