The former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero responds to judge José Luis Calama, attributes an “error” to him and, through his defense, denies having filed the nullity incident out of time. For this reason, and through a document accessed by EL MUNDO, he requests the head of the Investigating Court number 2 of the Audiencia Nacional to annul his resolution and “rectify” the order of inadmissibility of his request to annul the case in which he is being investigated.
Lawyer Víctor Moreno Catena recalls that the judge rejected his claim, alleging that when he filed his brief on June 25, the 20 days stipulated by law had already passed. However, Zapatero’s defense now asks the instructor to proceed with the “rectification and clarification” of his order “due to a material error in the calculation of the deadline, with all due respect”.
And, in his opinion, “May 25 is set as the initial day and it is considered that from that date access to the Cloud platform is granted”. “However,” adds Moreno Catena, “it was not until May 29 that the separate piece containing the investigation proceedings of the Prosecutor’s Office 1/2025, repeatedly invoked in our nullity incident, was incorporated into Cloud”.
Thus, the defense of the former socialist leader argues that “the proceedings were not complete with the access provided on May 25 and that the integrity of the case was not accessible at that time”. “Therefore, this party could never have known” the aforementioned Prosecutor’s documentation “before May 27”.
Read more Alpe d’Huez succumbs to a display for the ages from the god Pogacar
The lawyer highlights that “the information contained” in said separate piece constituted “an essential element in the different issues raised in our nullity incident”. Proof of this is that, he emphasizes, he requested through a brief filed on the 27th “through which we requested access to updated and complete information”.
“Given the circumstances,” he concludes, “and taking into account that the nullity incident was filed on June 25 at 12:53 p.m. and contrary to what the court erroneously believes, the incident promoted is within the legal period of 20 working days, and should be given the corresponding course”.
