The Supreme Court has granted the Government a maximum period of ten days to submit "the full identification of the final beneficiaries" of the Next Generation funds from the European Union, "with names and surnames and ID numbers," in the terms requested by the PP senator Eva Ortiz.
This is stated in a ruling from the high court, which Europa Press has accessed, dated October 14, so the deadline for delivering the list is set before the general elections scheduled for November 29.
The resolution is part of the conflict between the parliamentarian and the Executive that was resolved in April, when the Supreme Court already ordered the Government to inform about the recipients of the community funds.
In that ruling, also disseminated by this agency, the Administrative-Contentious Chamber obliged the Executive to detail the "final beneficiaries of NextGenerationEU funds with indication of the name or corporate name and the amount received," according to the document sent by Ortiz.
The senator requested that list, excluding those who had received less than 10,000 euros, arguing that the requested information "cannot be obtained through the National Subsidies Database, since this platform does not allow filtering the granted subsidies" based on whether they come from the Next Generation or not, as stated by the Supreme Court.
The Government responded that, "following the guidelines set by the European Commission," and with data from February 2025, "the 100 main recipients on the list have received more than 9.8 billion euros in European funds, almost 21% of the total funds received to date," as reflected by the high court.
"It is evident that it is not the same to provide information on the hundred largest recipients of funds and the percentage that this represented of the total amount received by Spain, than to provide information on the recipients of funds for amounts greater than 10,000 euros, which was what was requested to exercise the Government's control function," reasoned the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, legal sources indicated to Europa Press that the Executive complied with the mandate, but only provided the list of legal entities that received community funds, keeping the individuals included in the list anonymized.
This situation was brought to light by the procedural representation of the senator, exercised by the lawyer Víctor Soriano, in an enforcement incident presented before the Supreme Court last July.
ALMOST 40% OF THE LIST, ANONYMIZED
In that document, also consulted by this agency, the lawyer states that "a total of 30,738 records," that is, "the entirety corresponding to individuals" and 39.2% of the list, were "anonymized in such a way that it prevents knowing the identity of the recipient of the subsidy."
In his view, this represents "a clear reduction" for the senator's control task, "the Government of the nation could claim to shelter in the dissociation of data to hide from the control work exercised by the parliamentary opposition possible cases of corruption."
"It is emphasized that neither in the administrative route nor in the process did the defendant Administration intend to assert a hypothetical legal duty of data anonymization, so the ruling has declared as an individualized legal situation the right of my client to obtain the information without any limitation in its scope, so this partial or biased delivery of information contravenes the ruling," he alleged.
For this reason, he requested the high court to agree on "the necessary measures for the effectiveness of the ruling," and to issue an order "by which it orders the Government to deliver the data without dissociation, anonymization, or any reduction."
The new provision responds to this request, by acknowledging the writings of the senator, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Administration, and ordering that "the information provided to the executing party" be delivered "within ten days and including the full identification of the final beneficiaries of Next Generation EU funds, with names and surnames and ID numbers, as the defendant-executed party has come to accept, which has never alleged reasons justifying and supporting the anonymization carried out."
ORDERED THE LIST OF OFFICIAL HOUSING USED BY AUTHORITIES
A few days after the April ruling, the Supreme Court also required the Government to inform the PP about "the total number of available housing" in the state real estate park, specifying "those intended for official use by authorities or public officials."
Ortiz had requested "to know the total number of available housing in the real estate park of the General State Administration and its autonomous or dependent organizations, specifying those intended for official use by authorities or public officials, those that are unoccupied, and those that are rented or ceded for social use."
The Executive responded that "the General Inventory of State Assets and Rights does not include the category of housing or residence that allows for the automatic identification of properties that have such destination or condition, due to their factual situation or in accordance with their urban classification."
Furthermore, it stated that "public domain assets" intended "to house public services" and that may be residences occupied by public officials "would be subsumed in the spaces specific to the administrative services assigned to each department or public organization, linked or dependent on the General State Administration, without that use being specified in the inventory."
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Government's response does not justify "the lack of satisfaction of the right" of the senators "to request the necessary information for the performance of their parliamentary functions."
A right that, according to the court, "does not support a restrictive interpretation that allows the Administration to excuse itself on the grounds of the non-existence of prior or systematized treatment of the data, when they are effectively in its possession and can be obtained through minimal activity of internal collection or processing."
And it added that different ministries have provided "at least part of the requested information, which evidences not only the existence of the required data but also its reasonable availability from an organizational point of view."