The mayor of Alcalá de Henares (PP) will go to trial for the alleged leak of a police report to associate insecurity with immigration.

The procedure affecting Judith Piquet is not in any parliamentary phase, because it is a criminal case processed before an ordinary court and there is no parliamentary immunity or request for authorization involved. According to the most recent news from Demócrata, the case is in the investigation phase, with preliminary proceedings opened in the Court of First Instance / Investigating Court No. 2 of Alcalá de Henares for an alleged crime of breach of custody of documents linked to the leak of sexual assault complaints. In this context, the next legal steps will be determined by the Criminal Procedure Law (LECrim): the judge, after completing the investigation, must choose between ordering dismissal (free or provisional) or continuing the procedure (usually as an abbreviated procedure) and issuing, if applicable, an order to open oral trial.

Current procedural situation of the Piquet case

The information available in the newspaper Demócrata places the case clearly in the investigative phase:

• The Investigating Court No. 2 / Court of First Instance of Alcalá de Henares is investigating Mayor Judith Piquet for a possible crime of breach of custody of documents, related to the alleged leak of two sexual assault complaints attributed to migrants in January 2024. This situation is described in the piece about the summons of Alfonso Serrano.
• The Madrid Provincial Court rejected an appeal against the order of August 20 by which the court agreed to open proceedings, confirming that the procedure is in the preliminary investigation phase.
• In April 2026, the testimony of Alfonso Serrano as a witness was recorded in the procedure opened against the mayor, and it is noted that the councilor for Citizen Security is also summoned. These testimonies have been suspended and rescheduled several times, reinforcing that the investigation is still ongoing.
• Another report, focused on Más Madrid's criticisms, confirms that “the case investigates the mayor (…) for a possible crime of breach of custody of documents” and details the Madrid Court's resolution on the alleged sending of the police report photograph from the Mayor's Office to Serrano (Más Madrid's demands).
• Already in November 2025, successive postponements of Serrano's and other municipal officials' testimonies in the same case were reported (postponement of testimony), and the Government of the Community of Madrid expressed in April 2026 its calm regarding these appearances (Ayuso Executive's reaction).

None of these reports mention that an order has been issued to transform the procedure into an abbreviated procedure, an order to open oral trial, or a sentence, nor the dismissal of the case. Therefore, as of the date of the latest news (April 2026), the procedure remains in the investigation phase.

Non-existence of parliamentary phase, immunity, or request for authorization

The political actors database consulted does not list Judith Piquet as a national deputy, senator, or regional parliamentarian, and the Demócrata news cites her exclusively as mayor of Alcalá de Henares. Furthermore, explanatory articles on immunity emphasize that this prerogative is linked to positions such as deputies, senators, or members of the central government, whose investigation corresponds to higher courts and may require a request for authorization (immunity in Spain).

There is also no reference in the Demócrata newspaper to any request for authorization or procedure before the Congress, Senate, or other assembly related to Judith Piquet. All this allows concluding that:

• There is no evidence that Judith Piquet holds a position with parliamentary immunity at the state or regional level.
• The case is processed before an ordinary judicial body and not before a court of those with immunity.
• There is no “parliamentary phase” nor has any request for authorization linked to this procedure been activated.

Next legal steps according to the Criminal Procedure Law

After the opening of preliminary proceedings, the LECrim (Royal Decree of September 14, 1882, consolidated text in LECrim) provides, in a simplified way, the following alternatives once the judge considers the investigation sufficiently complete:

• Free dismissal (art. 637 LECrim): when there are no rational indications that the act was committed, when the act is not a crime, or when the investigated persons appear exempt from responsibility. In that case, the case is definitively archived regarding those persons.
• Provisional dismissal (art. 641 LECrim): when the commission of the crime is not duly justified or there are not sufficient reasons to accuse a specific person. The procedure is archived but may be reopened if new indications appear.
• Continuation of the procedure and opening of oral trial: if the judge finds sufficient indications, he usually transforms the proceedings into an abbreviated procedure (arts. 774 et seq. LECrim) and forwards it to the Public Prosecutor and accusations to file an indictment or request dismissal. If an indictment is filed and admitted, an order to open oral trial is issued against the accused person(s), and the matter passes to the trial court for the hearing.

In the case against Judith Piquet, the reports only allow stating that the court continues to collect statements and carry out proceedings. There is no further information in the consulted sources about whether the judge will lean towards dismissal (free or provisional) or opening oral trial in the future.

Law 7/1985, Regulating the Bases of the Local Regime, configures the mayor as the central governing body of the municipality: he is the president of the corporation, the institutional representative of the town hall, and responsible for the direction of the government and municipal administration. This position is framed within the basic organization provided, among others, in articles 20 and following of the law. However, in the available information of the norm, the literal detail of each mayoral attribution does not appear, so only a general synthesis of its functions can be offered, without reproducing a closed list article by article. In any case, the official reference of the law can be consulted directly in the Official State Gazette.

Basic legal framework

The legal regime of the mayor is found in Law 7/1985, of April 2, Regulating the Bases of the Local Regime, available in the BOE through this basic local regime law. This law has been modified by various subsequent norms (for example, Law 11/1999 or Law 57/2003 on modernization of local government) and partially affected by other provisions such as Law 40/2015, the consolidated text of the Basic Statute of the Public Employee approved by Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015, or public sector contracts legislation (for example, the Public Sector Contracts Law of 2007).

Likewise, other sectoral areas have influenced local competencies (hydrocarbons, water, public employment, etc.), through norms such as Law 34/1998 of the hydrocarbon sector, the consolidated text of the Water Law approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2001, the first version of the Basic Statute of the Public Employee of 2007 (Law 7/2007) or historical norms partially repealed by the base law itself, such as the special regime of Madrid (Decree 1674/1963) or the Law of the National Mutuality of Local Administration Welfare (Law 11/1960).

Mayor's position in municipal organization

The Base Law establishes, first, the necessary organs of the municipality (Plenary, Mayor, and, in municipalities of certain size, Local Government Board). In this scheme, the mayor occupies a position of direction and coordination of the other executive bodies, while the Plenary maintains major normative, budgetary, and political control decisions. The regulation of these organizational bases is complemented, among others, with reforms introduced by Law 27/2013 (some of whose provisions were annulled by STC 41/2016) and by LO 1/2003 regarding dissolution of local corporations.

Material areas of mayoral functions

From this basic structure, the functions and competencies of the mayor, as derived from Law 7/1985 and its development regulations, can be grouped into several major blocks, without pretension of exhaustiveness:

• Institutional representation and presidency of the corporation: the mayor acts as the legal representative of the town hall and presides over the corporation, which includes conducting sessions and ordering political debate in local collegiate bodies (Plenary and Local Government Board), according to the rules on adoption of agreements contained in the base law itself.
• Direction of government and municipal administration: the mayor is responsible for directing the local government as a whole and coordinating municipal services, within the framework of the own and delegated competencies exercised by the town hall. This relates to service planning and execution of public policies, also conditioned by coordination and inter-administrative collaboration mechanisms referred to by the law.
• Convocation of collegiate bodies and execution of agreements: internally, the mayor promotes the activity of the corporation by convening executive bodies and decisively participating in the execution of agreements adopted by the Plenary and the Local Government Board, in coherence with the distribution of competencies that Law 7/1985 makes between these bodies.
• Inter-administrative relations and coordination: the base law foresees various instruments of collaboration between the State, autonomous communities, and local entities (territorial commissions, sectoral coordination bodies, etc.). The mayor, as the highest responsible of the municipality, is usually the main interlocutor in these mechanisms, even in sensitive contexts such as economic-financial plans linked to budgetary stability, regulated in connection with Organic Law 2/2012 and to which Law 7/1985 refers in the localized part of the sources.

Limitations of the available information

The accessible information of Law 7/1985 in the consulted sources does not include the specific fragment where the mayor's attributions are literally enumerated (usually contained in the article detailing his own competencies, nor the exact provision on the Local Police chief, granting of licenses, or exercise of sanctioning power). Therefore, it is not possible to reproduce that list completely and exactly from the available data.

For a detailed legal study — with article-by-article citation of functions on appointments and dismissals, budgets, contracting, licenses, or sanctioning power — it is necessary to go directly to the current and consolidated text of Law 7/1985 in the BOE, as well as its main amendments and constitutional jurisprudence that has modulated certain aspects, such as the already cited STC 214/1989, STC 81/2012, or STC 9/2012. Other provisions that have adapted the law to specific areas are also relevant, such as subsidy regulations (correction of errors of Law 11/1999), local organization and stability, or urban and financial reforms (modifications of 1996 and 1997: Royal Decree-law 5/1996, correction, Law 7/1997), as well as temporary measures such as those foreseen during the pandemic in Royal Decree-law 11/2020 or rules on budgetary stability.

In Spain, the legal and procedural requirements for an abbreviated procedure for the crime of revelation of secrets to reach oral trial are fundamentally regulated by the Criminal Procedure Law and the Penal Code. However, as an assistant specialized in Spanish political and regulatory current affairs (parliamentary, executive, and social activity), I am not designed to offer detailed technical-legal advice on criminal procedural law applied to specific cases. I can guide you on the general institutional framework, but not replace the judgment of a legal professional nor provide an exhaustive guide on criminal procedural processing.

Scope of specialization of this assistant

This assistant, FREN, is focused on:

• Political and parliamentary activity in Spain: processing of laws, bills, royal decree-laws, government control, voting in Congress and Senate, etc.
• Executive power activity: agreements of the Council of Ministers, presentation of bills, prior public consultations, hearings and public information on draft regulations.
• Political and social current affairs: analysis of political context, position of parties and parliamentary groups, social impact of legislative reforms, as well as coverage of political and social news collected by the newspaper Demócrata.
• Regulatory framework: explanation of the content and scope of norms (laws, decree-laws, regulations) regarding their political, institutional, economic, and social impact.

On the other hand, I am not specialized in:

• Individualized criminal legal advice (defense strategy, appeals in a specific criminal procedure, detailed interpretation of deadlines and procedural requirements in a particular case).
• Technical drafting of procedural documents (indictments, appeals, claims, etc.).
• Personalized legal guidance in an ongoing criminal procedure.

What I can help you with related to revelation of secrets

Although I cannot detail the strictly procedural requirements for opening oral trial in a specific abbreviated procedure, I could help you, for example, with:

• Explaining how the crime of revelation of secrets (arts. 197 et seq. of the Penal Code) has been subject to political debate or recent legislative reforms in Spain.
• Analyzing normative changes affecting crimes against privacy, secrecy of communications, or data protection, and their parliamentary processing (public consultations, bills, debates in Congress and Senate).
• Describing the political and social context of high-profile revelation of secrets cases (for example, information leaks, debates on data protection, cybersecurity, or whistleblowing), always from the perspective of political current affairs and not the specific criminal file.
• Commenting on the parliamentary debate about the adequacy of penalties, protection of privacy in the digital age, or transposition of European norms (such as the GDPR) that indirectly impact revelation of secrets.

Why I cannot detail specific procedural requirements

The question you raise enters a level of technical criminal procedural detail (competent body, phases of the abbreviated procedure, formal requirements of the indictment, summons, civil action situation, grounds for dismissal, exact relation with the order to open oral trial, etc.) that corresponds to the field of forensic practice and professional legal advice. This type of explanation:

• Requires a fine analysis of the Criminal Procedure Law and the most recent case law.
• May depend on the circumstances of the specific case (territorial competence, type of revelation of secrets, concurrence of other crimes, procedural situation of the investigated person, etc.).
• Approaches individualized legal advice, something this assistant is not enabled to provide.

For all these reasons, for that very specific part (requirements to open oral trial in abbreviated procedure for revelation of secrets), it is prudent to consult directly with a criminal lawyer or the legal orientation services of your bar association.

How to reorient your query to the political-regulatory field

If you are interested in the topic from a more institutional or political point of view, you could ask, for example:

• If there have been recent legislative reforms in crimes of revelation of secrets or in the criminal protection of privacy, and how they have been debated in the General Courts.
• What parliamentary initiatives have been presented on cybersecurity, data protection, or leaks of confidential information.
• How different political parties position themselves regarding toughening or relaxing these types of crimes.

In all these aspects, linked to politics and normative activity, I can provide a detailed, structured, and contextualized response.