Eliseu Frígols i Brines, lawyer and professor of Criminal Law at the Universitat de València (UV), has analyzed the judicial case for the dana that has been under investigation since January 2025 in Plaza number 3 of the Civil and Investigation Section of the Court of Instance of Catarroja, and has emphasized: "Our laws are thought for much smaller matters".
The figures of the proceedings give an idea of its magnitude: so far 690 people have appeared before the investigating judge, Nuria Ruiz; 588 rulings have been issued; and around 40 lawyers are participating in a case opened for alleged offenses of manslaughter and negligent injuries, in which the former Justice and Interior counselor Salomé Pradas and her former number two Emilio Argüeso appear as investigated.
The expert has indicated to Europa Press that the case is "complex" because of the number of victims and parties appearing, which causes the proceedings to "drag on over time". He has pointed out that, with so many parties, "when there are so many parties, just for each one to file an appeal, it can take the judge two months to resolve it".
He recalled that, in addition to appeals, other actions must be carried out such as witness and investigated statements, preparation of reports, and submission of various documentation. "The more parties there are, the more complicated it is for the matter to move forward quickly because there are many more obstacles," he noted, although he admitted that the use of videoconferencing has significantly shortened the deadlines.
Asked about the possible duration of the investigation, which already has two extensions, he replied: "It depends on the number of actions carried out. If a very thorough investigation were to be done, with so many parties involved, the investigation can last as long as the investigator understands it must reach for the ascertainment of the facts".
He specified that in this type of summary proceeding it is not necessary to exhaust all possibilities during the investigation phase, unlike what happens in the indictments: "In the summary proceeding --he clarified-- the necessary actions must be carried out to establish whether the facts may constitute a crime or not and then that is determined in oral trial". In this context, he reiterated his diagnosis: "Our laws are thought for much smaller matters".
In the same vein, Andreu Moreno, professor of Criminal Law at the UV and lawyer for Mai Mes, one of the popular accusations appearing in the process over the dana, has commented to Europa Press that there is no fixed limit on extensions, "but they have to be adjusted to the investigation."
Moreno considers that the investigation "is going at a good pace," although evidence still remains to be carried out and several reports are still pending arrival. "At least one more extension will be needed and we estimate that the investigation could last another year," he stated. In his opinion, "The investigation --he added-- is being very carefully and guarantee-based conducted. It is being done very well. In this case, with more than 200 dead on the table, the case must be as guarantee-based as possible, which also prolongs the procedure."
Among the investigative steps taken, the judge has summoned 713 people to testify, including the two investigated. Of these, by October 29, 690 will have appeared before the court.
In parallel, the definitive response remains pending to the letter rogatory sent to the United States, addressed to Telegram and WhatsApp, in order to try to recover the messages that José Manuel Cuenca, former chief of staff of the former president of the Generalitat and deputy in Les Corts, Carlos Mazón, would have exchanged on the day of the flood with the investigated, with Mazón himself and with other senior officials.
In July, the U.S. authorities informed the court that WhatsApp "does not collect or retain content information for its subscribers (users)," so recovery of the messages deleted by Cuenca was ruled out. Even so, the magistrate agreed to maintain the letter rogatory "in order to obtain the corresponding data on participants, date and time of sending the WhatsApp messages or communications" on the day of the floods.
Mazón's position and the problem of those protected by parliamentary immunity
As for the role of former President of the Generalitat Valenciana Carlos Mazón in the case, currently appearing, Eliseu Frígols i Brines has recalled that the investigating judge requested that he be investigated, but the Superior Court of Justice of the Comunitat Valenciana rejected his charging by not finding sufficient indications. Regarding this situation he explained: "What happens with those protected by parliamentary immunity is that they are in a complex situation at the level of how to configure their participation in the procedure in which they are not formally investigated".
He has pointed out that "the situation is equally problematic with all those who have legal immunity". "The Mazón case --he added-- is not an exception, it happens in other cases where there are possible individuals with legal immunity".
In the specific case of the 'expresident', he has indicated that his defense has chosen to be present in the proceedings considering that it is the "most protective" route and thus avoid decisions being taken "behind his back". "You never know whether you are right or wrong", he pointed out.
He recalled that "The TSJCV says that Mazón cannot be investigated for now but the problem is that, despite that decision, if the court continues asking about him, it creates defenselessness for him. It is given to him by his position of the Valencian court". In his view, the regulation of legal immunity is "complex" and the system "is not well resolved in the law and generates problems and mismatches".
He added that, if Mazón lost his status as a person with legal immunity, the court could summon him as a suspect "regardless of being made a party to the case". In his opinion, "My view is that Mazón is in a strange status in which those who have legal immunity are", and he concluded: "It happens on more occasions and the problem is that it is not well resolved. It is something usual".
For his part, Andreu Moreno has described Mazón's procedural situation as "a little strange" and has acknowledged that he did not know of similar precedents. He considers that allowing him to appear after the judge's attempt to indict him is "the most protective option".
In his opinion, this decision "is stretching the limits of the figure so that he can be there without being there". "I think it is stretching the guarantees of criminal law in a way that, later, is not seen in other trials, in which guarantees are restricted to the maximum", he stated.
He added: "I, personally, as a jurist do not see it as bad because in the end it is protective, and we will see later how this ends, if he continues to be immune or if there is some indication against him". About the outcome, he concluded: "I think nobody knows how the situation is going to be resolved. I imagine it will be seen case by case as each point is raised".