Phoenix 24
His defense questions whether private communications had proper judicial authorization.
MADRID, Spain | June 2026
Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has challenged the legality of evidence used in the judicial investigation surrounding the 2021 rescue of airline Plus Ultra. His defense argues that private communications extracted from two electronic devices should be excluded if investigators cannot identify the judicial decisions authorizing their analysis and later use. The request does not determine whether the allegations against him are true or false. It raises a procedural question about whether crucial evidence entered the case with the guarantees required by law.
The controversy centers on a hard drive seized from a lawyer under investigation and a mobile phone connected to a former Plus Ultra executive. According to the defense, information from those devices helped generate police reports and investigative steps that eventually implicated Zapatero. His lawyers want the National Court to establish precisely how the material was obtained, which authorities approved access and whether it could legally be reused in a different Spanish investigation. Without that documentation, they argue, the evidence may be vulnerable to annulment.
The hard drive was reportedly seized during searches conducted in October 2024 as part of international judicial cooperation involving France and Switzerland. Those proceedings originally concerned suspected money laundering and included private communications belonging to an investigated lawyer. The material was later incorporated into Spanish inquiries with a different investigative purpose. Zapatero’s defense maintains that this change of use required specific judicial authorization rather than automatic transfer between proceedings.
The lawyers have asked investigating judge José Luis Calama to identify the resolution that permitted police units to examine the communications. They also want to know where that authorization appears in the case file and whether its scope covered the subsequent investigation. The defense argues that judicial approval is not a minor administrative formality. It is a legal safeguard governing access to private communications and the protection of fundamental rights.
The second dispute concerns information extracted from the mobile phone of a former Plus Ultra executive and later provided by authorities in the United States. Zapatero’s legal team wants additional details about the original seizure, the extraction method, the chain of custody and the authorization permitting the information to be transferred to Spain. It also questions whether permission from foreign authorities is sufficient when the material becomes evidence in a Spanish criminal proceeding. The defense wants the acquisition process tested against Spanish constitutional and procedural standards.
Judge Calama has reportedly authorized a formal request to the United States seeking permission to use information from the phone as evidence. Zapatero’s lawyers consider that step insufficient because it focuses on later authorization rather than fully clarifying how the data was initially obtained. They have appealed the decision and asked for broader information about the American procedure. Their argument is that later approval cannot automatically correct an unlawful original extraction.
The legal issue involves the principle commonly described as the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence. If a court concludes that private communications were accessed without the required authorization, the affected material may be removed from the proceedings. Investigative actions derived directly from that evidence could also be challenged. Whether that consequence applies depends on the specific facts, the connection between the evidence and later inquiries, and the court’s interpretation.
Zapatero’s defense has indicated that it could request a formal incident of nullity if the necessary authorization cannot be produced. Such a request would ask the court to invalidate particular procedural acts rather than automatically terminate the entire investigation. The practical effect would depend on how central the disputed communications are to the allegations. If investigators possess independent evidence, the case could continue even after some material was excluded.
The investigation concerns the Spanish government’s €53 million rescue of Plus Ultra during the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Authorities are examining whether influence was improperly exercised to benefit the airline and whether related financial operations involved criminal conduct. Zapatero has denied intervening to secure the rescue and has rejected wrongdoing. His status as a person under investigation does not imply guilt, and the case remains at the evidence-gathering stage.
The former prime minister recently appeared before the National Court and denied exercising influence on behalf of Plus Ultra. His defense has emphasized cooperation and transparency while challenging the legal foundation of parts of the investigation. This dual strategy allows him to contest the accusations on their substance while also questioning whether the authorities respected procedural limits. Criminal defense frequently operates on both levels.
The communications at issue were reportedly cited in reports prepared by Spain’s Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit. They were also incorporated into material considered by anti-corruption prosecutors. Investigators used the information while examining the possible existence of an international money-laundering and influence-peddling structure. The defense argues that evidence with such importance must have an especially clear legal origin.
The dispute demonstrates the difficulty of using digital evidence gathered through international cooperation. Electronic devices can contain years of conversations, documents and personal information unrelated to the original investigation. Once copied, that material can be searched repeatedly and transferred between authorities. Courts must determine when a new investigative purpose requires a new warrant or explicit authorization.
Chain of custody is another essential issue. Prosecutors must be able to show that the data presented in court is the same information originally seized and that it was not altered during extraction, storage or transfer. Technical reports, sealed records and documentation of each handover help establish reliability. Missing information does not automatically prove manipulation, but it can create grounds for challenge.
The case also tests the boundary between effective investigation and privacy protection. Police require access to communications when investigating complex financial crimes, particularly when money and information cross several countries. At the same time, broad access to devices can expose private material involving people who were not originally suspected. Judicial supervision is intended to prevent investigative convenience from overriding fundamental rights.
Zapatero’s challenge will now depend on the documentation available to the court and the responses received from foreign authorities. Judge Calama must decide whether the authorizations were sufficient, whether the evidence was properly transferred and whether any defect affects later proceedings. Those decisions may influence both the pace and scope of the investigation. They could also establish important guidance for future cases involving internationally obtained digital evidence.
The dispute should not be interpreted as proof that the investigation is invalid or that the evidence was lawfully obtained. Those are questions the court has not yet resolved. The defense is asserting a procedural objection that prosecutors and investigators will have an opportunity to answer. The final determination belongs to the judiciary.
Justice remains credible when evidence and procedure meet the same standard. / La justicia conserva su credibilidad cuando la prueba y el procedimiento cumplen el mismo estándar.