The Civil Section of the Court of First Instance of Madrid has summoned María Jesús Montero to a conciliation hearing next June 4, barely 18 days after the Andalusian elections of May 17.
The summons responds to the complaint filed by the mayor of Algeciras, José Ignacio Landaluce, who claims compensation of 200,000 euros for moral damages derived from some statements by the socialist leader.
The statements on gender violence that originate the case
The origin of the conflict is located in an event of the PSOE in Alcalá de Guadaíra, where Montero affirmed that the mayor had been “convicted, denounced” and that he was being investigated for a crime of gender violence.
However, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court archived in January a previous complaint upon not appreciating signs of a crime, which has led the mayor to consider that an illegitimate intrusion into his honor occurred.
The process: prior conciliation and possible judicial route
The act scheduled for June 4 is a usual prior step in this type of civil proceedings. Montero is not obliged to attend, but her absence would allow the conciliation to be considered attempted and open the door to a judicial procedure.
The mayor's defense maintains that the statements sought “to induce public opinion” to believe that there was an investigation for gender violence, something he flatly denies.
Political impact in full electoral campaign
The summons occurs at a particularly delicate moment: just one month before the Andalusian elections, in which María Jesús Montero runs as a PSOE candidate.
The move introduces an additional element of pressure in the campaign, in a context in which the polls already place the socialists below their 2022 results and with difficulties to articulate a government alternative.
It is not the first judicial controversy for public statements
It is not the first time that statements by Montero end up in court. Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner, Alberto González Amador, also filed a complaint against her for violation of the right to honor after some public statements, although in that case the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court.