Phoenix 24
A courtroom appearance exposes questions beyond the bailout.
MADRID, Spain, June 2026.
Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero denied using his political influence to secure the €53 million public rescue granted to Plus Ultra during the coronavirus pandemic. Appearing for more than three hours before National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz Calama, Zapatero maintained that he never contacted members of the government or officials responsible for evaluating the airline’s request. He declared that he had not exerted “the slightest influence” and insisted that nobody had asked him to intervene in the operation. The testimony is significant because investigators are examining whether political relationships, private intermediaries or financial arrangements shaped the decision to support the airline with public money.
Zapatero acknowledged that he contacted representatives of Banco Santander and asked them to receive executives from Plus Ultra, although he portrayed that intervention as a limited professional courtesy. According to his explanation, he merely made a telephone call so the bank could listen to the company’s representatives and did not pressure the institution to provide financing or favorable treatment. That admission introduces a distinction at the center of his defense: facilitating access to a private bank, he argued, was not equivalent to influencing a state rescue. Investigators must now assess whether the contact was an isolated recommendation or part of a wider network of relationships surrounding the airline and the public assistance it received.
The rescue was approved during the pandemic through a government fund created to support companies considered strategically important for the Spanish economy. Plus Ultra received €53 million, a decision that immediately generated political controversy because of questions about the airline’s size, financial condition and strategic relevance. The judicial inquiry has since expanded beyond the original bailout and now includes professional relationships, consultancy payments and possible commissions connected to several individuals and companies. Zapatero’s testimony therefore addressed not only the rescue itself, but also the financial and personal connections that prosecutors and the court are attempting to reconstruct.
One of the central lines of questioning involved Análisis Relevante, a consultancy directed by Julio Martínez, a friend of the former prime minister who is also under investigation. Zapatero confirmed that he maintained a professional relationship with the company, but acknowledged that no written contract had been signed to establish the terms of that work. Judge Calama questioned the absence of formal documentation and suggested that such an arrangement was unusual for a professional relationship with financial and tax implications. The exchange placed attention on the services allegedly provided, the payments involved and whether the economic relationship was properly documented and declared.
Zapatero also admitted that he introduced his daughters to Martínez so their communications agency, What The Fav, could work for Análisis Relevante. His daughters and his former secretary have been placed under investigation as the court examines the commercial relationships connected to the consultancy. The judge reportedly questioned why Análisis Relevante represented practically the only client of the communications company, an arrangement that may require a clearer explanation of the services, invoices and flow of funds. Zapatero defended the introduction as a legitimate professional contact and rejected the idea that it concealed an irregular financial structure.
A more guarded moment emerged when the judge asked about jewellery and watches found inside a safe during the search of Zapatero’s office on Ferraz Street. The former prime minister declined to answer questions about those objects, stating that he did not wish to testify on that issue. His refusal contrasted with the broader explanations he offered regarding Plus Ultra, Banco Santander and Análisis Relevante, leaving the origin, ownership and value of the items unresolved. The court has ordered an appraisal as part of its effort to determine whether the valuables have any relevance to the financial transactions under examination.
After leaving the National Court, Zapatero publicly denied having undeclared companies abroad and appealed for confidence in his conduct. However, his public statement did not address the jewellery recovered during the search, a silence that has reinforced scrutiny of that part of the investigation. His legal position will ultimately depend on documentary evidence, banking records, contracts, tax information and the consistency of testimony from other people involved in the case. The declarations made before Judge Calama represent one stage of an open judicial process and do not establish criminal responsibility.
The case now extends beyond the narrow question of whether one former leader directly pressured public officials. It also tests how informal access, political prestige, family businesses and professional relationships operate around decisions involving public resources. Zapatero has drawn a firm line between making introductions and exercising influence, but the court must determine whether the available evidence supports that distinction. Until the investigation is completed, the unresolved issue will remain whether these connections were ordinary professional interactions or elements of a broader structure surrounding the Plus Ultra rescue.
Más allá de la noticia, el patrón. / Beyond the news, the pattern.