The National Court will investigate the massive entry of people into Ceuta for possible crimes against the peace of the State.

As of early September 2026, the reform of the Spanish legal framework on border management and migration control is structured on two levels: initiatives already under parliamentary processing in the Congress and Senate, and major reforms still in the draft stage within the Government (not yet submitted to the Cortes). Overall, the system is fully adapting to the European Pact on Migration and Asylum and recent case law on returns and expulsions.

1. Initiatives under processing in the General Courts

a) Reforms of the Immigration Law

• Tightening of residency requirements and expulsions
  An Organic Law Bill amending Organic Law 4/2000, on Foreigners, to restrict regularization through residency is underway, originating in the Senate at the initiative of Vox senators and processed in both Chambers (files 622/000080 in the Senate and 124/000038 in the Congress). Its purpose is to:
  • Tighten the requirements for temporary residence and access to residency.
  • Strengthen the use of expulsion for certain serious and very serious offenses.
  • Reinforce the return regime and monitoring of migration flows.
  In the Congress, the deadline for submitting amendments has been extended until September 9, 2026, so the law remains in an initial phase, without committee or report yet.
• “Indirect” reform of Immigration Law via citizen security
  Another ongoing initiative, also from the Senate (622/000092 / 124/000045), is the bill “For the protection of the dignity of women and citizen security in public spaces”. Although its core is the reform of the Citizen Security Law, it includes a final provision that modifies several key articles of the Immigration Law:
  • Expands the cases where expulsion applies instead of a fine.
  • Adjusts the catalog of serious offenses related to public order.
  • Strengthens the link between administrative offenses and forced return.
  This bill is also in the amendment phase, with deadline extended until September 9, 2026, without having yet moved to committee.

b) Asylum law and access to international protection

• Access to asylum in embassies and consulates
  The Plurinational Sumar Group has promoted a Bill on access to the right of asylum and international protection requests in embassies and consulates (various submissions, including 122/000049 and 122/000071 in the Congress). Its purpose is to:
  • Develop article 38 of Law 12/2009 (asylum) on requests from abroad.
  • Regulate in detail transfers to Spain via diplomatic channels.
  • Transpose Directive 2013/32/EU on asylum procedures.
  These bills have been admitted for processing and forwarded to the Government, but remain pending consideration by the Plenary, that is, at a very early stage of processing.

c) Other related initiatives

• Royal Decree-law 2/2025 on migrant minors, processed as a bill
  Royal Decree-law 2/2025, which regulates urgent measures for the protection of the best interests of children and adolescents in the face of extraordinary migratory contingencies, is being processed as Bill 121/000055 in the Congress. As of early September 2026, it remains in the amendment phase, with deadline also extended until September 9, so substantive discussion has not yet entered committee.
• Initiatives on security, information, and borders
  Bill 121/000077, on information exchange between security and customs services of EU member states, is also in the amendment phase. It is not a direct migration reform but affects the operational framework for border control and data exchange relevant to irregular immigration and human trafficking.
• Extensive package of non-legislative motions and proposals
  Numerous non-legislative proposals and motions (from PP, Vox, Sumar, Canarian groups, etc.) are processed in parallel on:
  • Strengthening Frontex and resources in Ceuta and Melilla.
  • Control of irregular migration flows and expulsions.
  • Migratory crisis in the Canary Islands and Ceuta.
  These initiatives do not directly modify legislation but politically guide the Government and the Chamber.

2. Major reforms still in draft stage

Still outside Parliament but very relevant for border management, the Council of Ministers approved on August 25, 2026:

• A Draft Bill for a new Asylum Law, introducing border procedures and accelerated resolution routes (up to 12 weeks in certain cases).
• A Draft Organic Law amending the Immigration Law, incorporating a border return procedure of up to 12 weeks for those arriving irregularly without right to international protection, and specifying the right of stay of applicants while their case is processed.

Both texts are still at the government stage (Council of Ministers agreement as draft bills). They have not yet been submitted as bills to the Congress, so their parliamentary processing has not yet begun, although the Executive has announced its intention to expedite that submission.

In summary, the core of legal reforms on borders and migration control is currently at an early or intermediate stage: several bills to tighten Immigration Law are slowly advancing in the amendment period, proposals to expand asylum guarantees in embassies await consideration, and major reforms aligned with the European Pact on Migration and Asylum remain for now at the draft stage within the Government.

In the National Court, magistrate María Tardón and chief prosecutor Jesús Alonso perform distinct but complementary functions, framed within the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) and the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The news and documents reviewed allow us to see, through specific cases, their typical competencies in practice within that legal framework.

Competencies of magistrate María Tardón

Journalistic sources identify her as investigating magistrate of the National Court, responsible for a Central Investigative Court (in the news she is presented as “magistrate of the National Court” and “head of Central Investigative Court Number 3”). From this position, her competencies correspond to those of any investigating judge of the NC, applying the LOPJ and the Criminal Procedure Law.

From the cited cases, the following functions particularly emerge:

• Direction of criminal investigation (instruction): in several cases it is noted that the judge opens and promotes preliminary proceedings in matters of special relevance, such as the Ceuta migratory crisis or cybercrime and data trafficking networks. She requests reports from the National Police and Civil Guard, defines investigation lines, and decides which proceedings are carried out.
• Adoption of personal precautionary measures: in the case involving a former UN official, it is indicated that María Tardón “has ordered provisional imprisonment” of the suspect, supported by the Prosecutor's Office, upon assessing flight risk. In another case (the ‘youtuber’ Valyrio), it is explained that she first orders imprisonment and, once evidence is secured, agrees to his release. That is, she exercises the competence to order preventive detention, release, and other precautionary measures.
• Control of judicial police actions: in the Ceuta investigation, news reports indicate she limits the information the police team can send to their superiors, reminding that the judicial police are at the disposal of judges and prosecutors. This capacity to order and channel police actions derives directly from her instruction competencies.
• Determination of the National Court's jurisdiction: in the Ceuta crisis, the magistrate herself requests reports and forwards actions to the Prosecutor's Office to pronounce on whether the National Court is competent. She must then decide, based on evidence, whether to keep the case in the NC or refer it to another body. This decision connects with the jurisdiction rules of the LOPJ for terrorism, criminal organization, offenses against State security, or complex and organized phenomena.
• Guarantee of rights and control of secrecy of proceedings: the Prosecutor's Office asks her to assess the declaration of partial secrecy of the Ceuta proceedings, a decision that corresponds to the investigating judge, balancing the interest of the investigation and the rights of the parties.

Competencies of chief prosecutor Jesús Alonso in the National Court

Jesús Alonso appears in sources as chief prosecutor of the National Court. His role is framed in the Constitution (article 124) and the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which assign the Public Prosecutor the mission to promote the action of justice, ensure legality, citizens' rights, and the public interest. In the National Court, the chief prosecutor directs this activity.

The documents reviewed show several specific functions:

• Direction of the National Court Prosecutor's Office: he signs decrees and resolutions on behalf of the NC Prosecutor's Office. In the Nolotil medication case, a decree signed by him recalls that this Prosecutor's Office is competent for actions related to national-level state bodies (such as the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices), illustrating his role in legally framing investigations opened by the NC Prosecutor's Office.
• Promotion and delimitation of Public Prosecutor investigations: in the Nolotil case, Jesús Alonso establishes that the Public Prosecutor's actions aim to protect the right to physical integrity, health, and consumer rights, and orders initial proceedings: requesting information from AEMPS about manufacturers, marketers, authorizations, and adverse reactions. This reflects his competence to define the object of pre-procedural proceedings and order initial investigative steps.
• Designation of investigating prosecutors: the same decree indicates he designates a specific prosecutor (Manuel Campoy) as investigator of the proceedings. According to the Public Prosecutor's Statute, it corresponds to the chief prosecutor of each Prosecutor's Office to distribute cases and entrust their processing to specific prosecutors.
• Positioning on the National Court's jurisdiction: in the Ceuta crisis it is indicated that the chief prosecutor informs magistrate Tardón that he considers the NC “competent to hear the referred matter,” justifying it because relevant effects occurred in Spanish territory and the NC's special capacity for complex criminal phenomena. In that case and others (Nolotil), the Prosecutor's Office, directed by him, issues reports on the jurisdiction of the judicial body.
• Protection of broad general interests: the choice of cases (Nolotil, major migratory crises, actions of large public bodies) shows that, according to the Organic Statute, the NC Prosecutor's Office under his leadership focuses on cases with national impact and the protection of collective goods (public health, State security, public order, consumer and user rights).

In summary, magistrate María Tardón exercises in the National Court the judicial function of instructing highly complex criminal cases, making decisions on proceedings, precautionary measures, and jurisdiction of the body. Chief prosecutor Jesús Alonso directs the NC Prosecutor's Office, framing Public Prosecutor investigations, designating prosecutors, delimiting the object of proceedings, and defending, before the judicial body itself, the National Court's jurisdiction and the protection of the general interest.

An autonomous community or autonomous city like Ceuta can appear in a criminal proceeding before the National Court, but must justify that it has a legitimate interest in the procedure and meet the general requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law regarding private prosecution and, if applicable, popular prosecution. The fact that the competent body is the National Court does not substantially alter these requirements, although it usually raises the level of justification for the appearance.

1. Cases in which Ceuta can appear

In practice, an autonomous city can intervene as a prosecuting party when:

• There is direct harm to its assets: for example, crimes of embezzlement, subsidy fraud, fraud, or corruption that have affected the City's funds, assets, or contracts.
• Its public services or dependent bodies are affected: crimes causing serious damage to infrastructures, centers, or public companies of the City, or to the provision of essential services whose ownership or organization corresponds to the autonomous administration/autonomous city.
• There is damage to its institutional reputation or proper functioning: for example, corruption networks compromising the institution's image, provided a real legitimate interest can be argued, not merely political or media.
• Crimes that singularly affect the community residing in its territory: terrorism, organized crime, trafficking, or crimes against fundamental rights when there is an especially intense or differentiated impact on the Ceuta community, and it is justified that the City is an institutional victim or collectively harmed.

2. Active legitimation of the community or autonomous city

Criminal procedural law allows being a prosecuting party:

• As private prosecution, when one is a “harmed party” or direct victim of the crime. Here the City of Ceuta acts as an affected entity (due to patrimonial, functional, or institutional damage).
• As popular prosecution, when the criminal action is exercised in defense of legality and the general interest, without needing to be a direct victim. In that case, the City must:
  • Justify a concrete and objective public interest, not purely political.
  • Accept the conditions imposed by the judicial body (deposit or bond, limits on the object of the accusation, etc.).

Jurisprudence is more flexible when the public administration is harmed (private prosecution), and more restrictive when acting in popular prosecution, to avoid merely symbolic or partisan appearances.

3. Competent body to agree on the appearance

The decision to appear is not spontaneously adopted by legal services, but by the competent political body of the City, according to its Statute and internal regulations. Indicatively:

• Normally, the Government Council approves the appearance in relevant criminal cases, especially if involving popular prosecution.
• There may be a delegation to the President or the competent councilor (e.g., Finance, Presidency, or Justice) to agree on appearance in certain types of cases.
• The agreement usually takes the form of a Government Council resolution or President/councilor resolution, specifying:
  • The case in which the appearance is agreed (case number and body).
  • In what capacity it acts (harmed party or popular prosecution).
  • The designation of procedural representative and legal counsel.

4. Procedural representation and defense

Like any prosecuting party before the National Court, the City must have:

• Procurator of the Courts with power of representation, normally authorized by apud acta power or notarial power.
• Lawyer who assumes the defense:
  • As a general rule, these will be the City's own legal services (legal counsel or legal advisory).
  • External lawyers may be used when internal regulations allow and there is express agreement authorizing contracting and procedural representation.

If the City acts as popular prosecution, a deposit and bond may additionally be required, as for any other popular prosecutor.

5. Particularities due to the National Court

The fact that the competence lies with the National Court does not introduce different formal requirements, but in practice it requires:

• Enhanced motivation of the Autonomous City's interest in the procedure, to avoid unnecessary overlaps with the Prosecutor's Office or the State Attorney's Office.
• Institutional coordination when other administrations are involved (State, other communities), to avoid duplicating accusations or procedural positions.

For a practical case in Ceuta, the starting point is always: to prove a real harm or a concrete public interest, formally approve the appearance by the competent body of the City, and channel it through procurator and lawyer (own or authorized external), clarifying whether acting as harmed party or popular prosecution.