Spanish court order probe into PM over airline bailout
MADRID: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez faced a new legal setback Wednesday as a court ordered an investigation into a potential conflict of interest related to his government's financial bailout of Air Europa.
The ruling came a day after the Supreme Court found that Spain's top prosecutor -- a government appointee -- might have breached judicial secrecy in another case, potentially paving the way for a trial.
It also follows separate corruption investigations involving Sanchez's wife, his brother, and a former close aide.
Madrid's High Court said it had directed the Civil Service Ministry's Office for Conflicts of Interest to investigate whether Sanchez should have recused himself from a 2020 Cabinet meeting that approved a €475 million bailout for Air Europa during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The probe stems from a complaint filed by the conservative Popular Party, or PP. That complaint alleges that Globalia -- Air Europa's parent company -- was sponsoring projects linked to Sanchez's wife, Begona Gomez, at the time of the bailout.
'Sanchez gave public funds to someone who had financially supported his wife, and his direct involvement in the bailout must be investigated,' PP sources said Wednesday.
The court did not rule on the substance of the allegations.
But it did state that the Office for Conflicts of Interest had a legal obligation to examine the case — even if it ultimately finds no wrongdoing.
A copy of the June 6 ruling was made public on Wednesday.
An initial request by the PP in March was dismissed by the office, which cited a report from the prime minister's general secretariat stating that Gomez had no professional ties to Globalia.
However, the court criticised the office for relying solely on that report and said it had found no evidence that a formal investigation had been conducted.
Gomez has been under judicial investigation since April over allegations that she may have used her husband's position to advance her professional interests.
A court recently ordered part of that probe -- specifically regarding her ties to Globalia -- to be dropped due to a lack of evidence.
Sanchez has consistently defended his wife and his government, accusing right-wing and far-right parties of orchestrating what he describes as a smear campaign aimed at destabilizing his administration.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Spain's PM rejects calls for snap election as scandals mount
FILE PHOTO: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks at a press conference at the Spanish Embassy in Beijing, China April 11, 2025. REUTERS/Tingshu Wang/ File Photo MADRID (Reuters) -Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez asked citizens for forgiveness after his close ally quit his posts earlier on Thursday over graft allegations, and said his Socialist Party would undergo an external audit, but rejected the opposition's calls for an early election. "We should not have trusted him (Santos Cerdan)," a sombre-looking Sanchez told a news briefing at his Socialist Party's headquarters, acknowledging that the accusations against him were very serious. With various scandals swirling around his minority government, the case poses one of the biggest threats yet to the survival of the country's fragile leftist coalition government. Sanchez said, however, most of the attacks on his government were not grounded in reality. (Reporting by Inti Landauro and David Latona, Andrei Khalip)
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Japan party leaders face off over no-confidence motion; Opposition hesitant amid tariff negotiations with United States
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, (right), and Constitutional Democratic Party leader Yoshihiko Noda participate in the party leader debate at the Diet in Tokyo on Wednesday (June 11, 2025). - Photo: The Yomiuri Shimbun TOKYO: A tense standoff took place during a debate between party leaders in the Diet on Wednesday (June 11) as the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the main opposition party grappled with a potential no-confidence motion against the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Ishiba, who also serves as LDP president, and Yoshihiko Noda, president of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, waged a war of nerves at the final party leader debate of the current Diet session. Noda took a confrontational stance, despite appearing inclined to forgo the no-confidence motion, but he lacked vigor. This highlighted his struggle to keep the CDPJ at an appropriate distance from the government and the ruling bloc. Arguments lacked depth During the debate, Noda emphasised measures to combat rising prices. He asserted that the approach taken by Ishiba Cabinet's tended to 'understand the issues but either postpones [taking steps] or does nothing.' However, Noda noticeably lacked depth in the pursuit of individual issues. He pressed for the consumption tax rate on food to be reduced to 0%, which is one of the CDPJ's campaign pledges for the House of Councillors election. However, Ishiba rejected a possible tax cut, saying: 'Mr. Noda understands the significance of the consumption tax better than anyone. I respect him as a politician.' Noda questioned Ishiba about the Japan-US tariff negotiations, asking, 'Is there a prospect of reaching an agreement on main points?' Ishiba remained unruffled and responded: 'We are making progress one step at a time. Ultimately, [US] President [Donald Trump] will make the decision.' Noda wavering Noda failed to fully commit to a confrontational stance, as he hesitated about submitting a no-confidence motion. The CDPJ has submitted no-confidence motions in ordinary Diet sessions every year since 2018, except in 2020, when priority was given to Covid-19 countermeasures. Under a minority government, the opposition can pass such a motion if it is united. Normally, this would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the opposition to bring about a change of government. Noda had hinted at submitting a motion but began to waver, questioning whether such a political decision was appropriate amid ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, which is considered a national crisis. If Japan-US tariff negotiations continue even after their bilateral summit meeting — scheduled on the sideline of the Group of Seven summit from Sunday to Tuesday — the CDPJ could face public criticism if a political vacuum emerges from the passage of a no-confidence motion. Furthermore, if the tariff negotiations are successful, that would also make it difficult for the party to submit such a motion. On the other hand, there are simmering voices within the CDPJ to demonstrate a more aggressive and confrontational stance by submitting the motion. Noda had even told aides before the party leader debate that he was genuinely struggling with the decision of whether to submit the motion. Avoiding dissolution If a no-confidence motion is submitted, some within the government and the LDP believe the House of Representatives should be dissolved without a vote on the motion. But junior coalition partner Komeito opposes holding simultaneous elections for both houses. Nevertheless, if a no-confidence motion passes, Ishiba would have no choice but to either dissolve the lower house or see his Cabinet resign en masse. Many within the ruling party believe there would be no option but dissolution if it passed. The prime minister wants to avoid the political vacuum caused by dissolution, and intends to courteously respond to talks between the ruling and opposition party leaders on tariff negotiations around the time of the G7 Summit. Ishiba is trying to save face for Noda while hoping the CDPJ will not submit the motion. - The Yomiuri Shimbun
New Straits Times
14 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'
TARIFFS, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring "emergency" situations that his critics insist do not exist. "In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution," New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional – and usually temporary – basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. "But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it," Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas – eight times in all, according to National Public Radio – thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency" in the United States – the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, "to increase our competitive edge," the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a "dictatorial" drift. "The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. "All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power," Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the "emergency" created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges "in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president," Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, "and courts should not interfere here either," it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, "is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive – and so demanding government intervention."
