The complaint of an accountant from Red.es shakes the management of European funds and reopens the focus on the Begoña Gómez case.

The investigation into the Red.es files linked to companies of Juan Carlos Barrabés remains open on two levels: in the Madrid Court of Instruction 41, within the so-called Begoña Gómez case, and in the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), which focuses on the possible misuse of EU funds. As of August 2026, no trial has been scheduled for these contracts, but there are several separate pieces, police reports, and interventions by the popular prosecution aimed at expanding the circle of those investigated at Red.es. The Madrid Provincial Court has also ordered that Barrabés's situation be processed in a separate procedure, apart from the possible jury trial of Begoña Gómez.

Investigating bodies and general framework

At the Spanish internal level, the responsible body is the Madrid Court of Instruction No. 41, led by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado in the procedure against Begoña Gómez. Following reports from the UCO requested by the European Public Prosecutor's Office, Peinado has opened a specific piece for alleged malfeasance and fraud against the financial interests of the EU linked to Red.es contracts financed with European funds, as reported by the newspaper Demócrata in this information.

In parallel, the EPPO examines the European aspect of these awards. A comprehensive report from the IGAE (Treasury) sent to the European Public Prosecutor's Office detects that letters of recommendation, including those from Begoña Gómez, would have “unjustly and illegally” favored a joint venture led by a Barrabés company in Red.es contracts, as detailed by Demócrata in this news and in another piece about irregularities in Red.es awards.

Which Red.es files are under scrutiny

The proceedings focus mainly on:

• Digital training contracts awarded to joint ventures involving Innova Next (Barrabés group), for amounts exceeding 10 million euros, with European funding, as recalled in this political chronicle.
• A specific contract of 4.05 million to an Innova Next–KPMG joint venture, subject of a separate piece in which the popular prosecution (Hazte Oír, within the “Begoña case”) requests the testimony of Begoña Gómez as a witness and the indictment of about twenty Red.es officials. Details are in this article.
• Other tender files where the UCO detects “decisive arbitrariness” and preferential treatment to Barrabés companies in the evaluation of offers, according to the police report revealed by Demócrata in this information.

Procedural status of Barrabés and Red.es officials

In the main piece of the Begoña Gómez case, Judge Peinado attributes to Barrabés alleged crimes of influence peddling and corruption in business due to his relationship with the support letters signed by Gómez, according to this piece. Additionally, the popular prosecution has requested prison sentences for him in their filings, as reflected in this news.

However, the Madrid Provincial Court has partially corrected Peinado's order to open oral proceedings: it maintains a future jury trial for Begoña Gómez and her advisor for influence peddling and embezzlement, but excludes Barrabés from that piece and orders that his situation “be processed separately.” Two Demócrata pieces explain this: one about the Court's decision, here, and another analysis, here, which emphasizes that this does not mean the definitive dismissal of the Barrabés case, but that the proceedings must continue in another procedure.

In the separate piece on European funds/Red.es, Barrabés is investigated for alleged malfeasance and fraud against the EU's interests regarding the 4.05 million contract co-financed by Brussels. The popular prosecution expressly requests that he be declared as investigated and that around twenty technical and managerial Red.es officials be indicted for “willful conduct” aimed at ensuring the award to Barrabés's joint venture through manipulation of evaluation reports, according to this information.

At the same time, the EPPO has summoned Barrabés as an investigated party within its own case on Red.es contracts with community funding, as recalled in the report of his appearance before the Senate published by Demócrata in this news.

Current status and foreseeable next steps

As of August 2026, the situation is as follows:

• Red.es awards to Barrabés companies remain under investigation both by Judge Peinado (separate piece) and by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
• Barrabés maintains the status of investigated party, but has been excluded, for now, from the future jury trial against Begoña Gómez; his case will be processed in another cause, still in the investigation phase.
• No order to open oral proceedings has been issued specifically on the Red.es files; the case is in a phase of proceedings (statements, expert reports, and submission of documentation by Red.es and the IGAE).

No further information is available in the consulted sources about specific deadlines or imminent decisions in this separate piece, beyond the fact that the case remains open and pending new rulings from Peinado and, if applicable, the Madrid Provincial Court.

According to the current legislation found in the consulted regulations, Óscar López is the head of the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function, which is responsible for the Government's policy on telecommunications, information society, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and public function. These regulations set the general framework of his powers but do not expressly identify Red.es nor detail the specific supervisory powers over this entity. Therefore, legally it can only be stated with certainty that any function of oversight or supervision of Red.es would fall within that material scope of the ministry and in the minister's position as head of the department. The sources analyzed do not include the ministry's organic structure royal decree nor the updated statute of Red.es that specify those powers directly.

1. Position of Óscar López and competent ministry

According to available institutional information, Óscar López Águeda is Minister for Digital Transformation and Public Function in the Government of Spain, in the current legislature. This ministry is one of the departments created in the ministerial restructuring at the end of 2023.

The creation and basic delimitation of the ministry is set out in Royal Decree 829/2023, of November 20, which restructures ministerial departments, and in its subsequent amendment by Royal Decree 1230/2023, of December 29. The latter explicitly establishes the content of article 22, relating to the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function.

2. Legal powers of the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function

Article 22 of Royal Decree 1230/2023 assigns to the ministry headed by Óscar López, in summary, the following major functions:

• Telecommunications policy.
• Information society.
• Digital transformation.
• Development and promotion of artificial intelligence.
• Public administration, public function, and public governance.
• Direction of three senior bodies: Secretariat of State for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures, Secretariat of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence, and Secretariat of State for Public Function.

Red.es, by its nature and activity, is an entity linked to information society and digital transformation policies. Therefore, any regime of attachment and supervision over Red.es must legally fit within that ministerial competence framework and, ultimately, in the minister's position as the department's highest political authority.

3. What does the regulation say about Red.es and ministerial supervision?

In the investigation of current regulations, the updated statute of Red.es nor the royal decree developing the basic organic structure of the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function have not been located in the sources handled. It is precisely in these texts where, usually, the following are specified:

• The formal attachment of Red.es to a Secretariat of State or directly to the ministry.
• The powers of strategic direction, oversight, or supervision (for example, approval of action plans, appointments or dismissal of governing bodies, general policy instructions, etc.).
• The control mechanisms (monitoring objectives, accountability, approval of budgets or program contracts, among others).

Since these texts do not appear in the consulted regulations, it is not possible to cite specific articles that precisely define Minister Óscar López's powers over Red.es (for example, whether he is responsible for proposing the appointment of the entity's management, approving certain plans, or intervening in its financial control).

4. Scope that can be deduced with certainty

With the available regulatory information, only the following can be stated with certainty:

• Óscar López, as head of the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function, is the highest political authority of the areas of telecommunications, information society, and digital transformation defined in article 22 of Royal Decree 1230/2023.
• Red.es, due to its activity, fits within that material scope, so generally, any state supervision over the entity is integrated into the competence scope of the ministry he leads.
• The specific details of oversight, control, and supervision over Red.es (type of attachment, powers over its governing bodies, management control, etc.) depend on specific regulations (Red.es statute and the ministry's basic organic structure royal decree) that are not found in the analyzed sources.

Consequently, from a strictly legal point of view and with the available legislation, the catalog of powers exercised today by Minister Óscar López over Red.es cannot be described more precisely beyond his general position as head of the department competent in digital transformation and information society.

The question you raise is very technical and falls within the scope of administrative, procedural, and archival law (file management) in Spain. With the information available in the consulted sources, only content related to how a current law is modified through legislative reform and how a law is challenged before the Constitutional Court appears, but nothing is provided about the specific requirements to delete or modify documentation of a file already judicialized in a public entity. Therefore, I do not have sufficient basis to rigorously describe the specific legal requirements applicable to such a concrete case.

It is important to emphasize that, by design, my area of expertise is the explanation of political current affairs, parliamentary and executive activity, and the regulatory context in a broad sense (for example, how a law is processed, how it is reformed, how it is challenged before the Constitutional Court, etc.), but not detailed technical legal advice on internal document management operations in specific files nor case-by-case interpretation of the legal system. The obtained references only contain general information about:

• Reform of current laws: it is explained that to modify an already effective law, it is necessary to process and approve a new law (legislative reform) that changes, adds, or removes parts of the original law, through a bill or legislative proposal, debate and voting in Congress and Senate, sanction, promulgation, and publication in the BOE.
• Challenging laws before the Constitutional Court: the possibility of filing an unconstitutionality appeal within three months following the publication of the norm is detailed, by certain legitimized subjects (President of the Government, 50 deputies, 50 senators, executive bodies, and assemblies of Autonomous Communities), and the effects of a possible declaration of unconstitutionality.

None of this, however, covers the operational requirements for deleting or modifying documents in administrative or judicial files processed by public sector entities. To properly answer your question, specific information would be needed about, among others, the legal regime of archives and documents of public administrations, the rules on custody and conservation of files, the impact of judicialization of a matter on the intangibility of the file, possible disciplinary or criminal liabilities for document manipulation, and coordination with procedural and legal regime laws, as well as data protection regulations. This information does not appear in the sources I have available for this response.

Since, according to the instructions under which I operate, I cannot invent norms, articles, deadlines, or procedures that do not appear in the consulted sources, I also cannot indicate, for example, which specific provisions of a certain law regulate the deletion of documents in a judicialized file, nor what authorizations or guarantees would be required in each type of administration (state, regional, local, public bodies). Any attempt to detail steps, formal requirements, or legal consequences would be speculative and could lead to errors in a particularly sensitive matter.

Consequently, the only prudent thing I can do here is to refer you to the need to obtain specialized legal advice (internal legal counsel of the entity, public legal service, or another legal professional) who can analyze:

• The sectoral regulations applicable to the specific entity (for example, regional regulations on archives and documents, or internal regulations on file management).
• The obligations arising from the fact that the file is already judicialized or may be so, and the possible liabilities for improper manipulation of its content.
• Coordination with rules on transparency, access to information, and data protection, which may condition the conservation or suppression of certain documentation.

I can continue helping you, within my scope, if you reformulate the question towards more political aspects or parliamentary and governmental activity, for example: how document management in public administrations has been recently regulated, what parliamentary debates there have been about transparency and archives, or how a legal reform affecting these areas is processed. In those cases, the available information on legislative procedures (such as how a law is modified or how a norm is challenged before the Constitutional Court) fits with what I can explain in detail and without risk of inaccuracies.