Ábalos tries to overturn his conviction in the 'mask case': he claims he should have been tried by the Audiencia Nacional and not the Supreme Court

José Luis Ábalos has asked the Supreme Court to annul the sentence that condemned him to 24 years and three months in prison for the 'masks case'. The former minister's defense has filed an incident of nullity in which it denounces several violations of fundamental rights during the investigation and trial.

The brief opens the way for Ábalos to seek protection from the Constitutional Court. Its presentation before the same Criminal Chamber that issued the conviction is a mandatory step before going to the Court of Guarantees, as he already announced he would do after learning of the sentence.

The fight over the court that judged him

One of the main arguments of the defense directly affects the competence of the Supreme Court. Ábalos resigned from his seat as a deputy on January 28, 2026 and maintains that, once he lost his status as a privileged person, the trial should have been held in the Audiencia Nacional.

The Supreme Court kept the case because the opening of the oral trial had been agreed upon on December 11, 2025, several weeks before the former minister left Congress. The Chamber also relied on a non-jurisdictional plenary agreement from December 2014 to retain jurisdiction.

The defense rejects this criterion and assures that that agreement "lacks normative rank" to limit the right to the judge predetermined by law. It also denounces that Ábalos lost the possibility of his conviction being reviewed by a higher court by having been judged directly by the highest ordinary judicial instance.

"Litigating blindly" against digital evidence

The incident of nullity once again puts the focus on the electronic devices seized during the investigation. Lawyer Marino Turiel maintains that he could not effectively access the original terminals or the forensic copies with their corresponding verification codes to perform an independent analysis.

The defense adds that part of that material appeared published in the media while it remained out of his reach. "The defense had to litigate blindly against material that was already circulating in the public space," states the brief, which also denounces failures in the control of the chain of custody and a violation of the former minister's privacy.

Aldama returns to the center of the battle

Ábalos directs another part of his appeal against the value given to the testimony of Víctor de Aldama. He states that his conviction "rests, essentially" on the declaration of a co-defendant who received the most favorable penal treatment and who, according to his defense, lacked sufficient external corroborations.

The sentence defended a different assessment. The magistrates considered that Aldama's account had a "solid evidentiary background", supported by declarations from other defendants and witnesses, documentation, and several reports from the Central Operative Unit of the Civil Guard.

The appeal also questions the conviction for belonging to a criminal organization and argues that the penalties related to the hiring of Jésica Rodríguez in Ineco and Tragsatec were insufficiently motivated. The defense assures that the court failed to assess documents on imputed hours, activity reports, training courses, and the selection process followed in Tragsatec.

The Supreme Court convicted Ábalos for criminal organization, bribery, embezzlement, and influence peddling, with a total sentence of 24 years and three months and a maximum effective compliance of 16 years and six months. The ruling considered proven monthly payments of 10,000 euros, rents paid by the plot, irregular hirings in public companies, and various actions carried out for Aldama's benefit.

The businessman received four and a half years in prison, although the Supreme Court suspended his entry into prison due to his collaboration with Justice. Aldama must remain crime-free, report his activities every six months, and complete one year of community service.

The Criminal Chamber must now decide whether to accept the incident and annul the sentence. If it rejects it, Ábalos may file the announced appeal for protection before the Constitutional Court.