Catarroja judge refuses to summon two consellers in DANA probe

The DANA case is a criminal investigation into how Valencia’s regional authorities handled the deadly floods of October 29, 2024. The stakes are obvious — hundreds died, families want accountability, and every procedural ruling now shapes who may end up under real scrutiny. This week, the judge in Catarroja drew that circle a little tighter. She again refused to summon two current or former Valencian ministers, José Antonio Rovira and Miguel Barrachina, as witnesses. ### Why does this ruling matter? Because witness lists are not just admin. They define the story the court is willing to test. If the judge had allowed those statements, the case would have opened further into what the whole Consell — the Valencian cabinet — knew, discussed, or failed to do on the day of the catastrophe. Instead, she kept the focus on the officials directly tied to the emergency command structure. ### Who wanted them called? The request came from the popular prosecution represented by Compromís, and the Fiscalía backed it. They wanted Rovira — who was Education minister on the day of the floods and is now in Hacienda — and Barrachina, now Agriculture minister and government spokesperson, to testify about possible conversations with former justice and interior minister Salomé Pradas, one of the main figures already under investigation. (europapress.es) ### So why did the judge say no? Basically, her logic is narrow but clear. Conversations before, during, or after a Consell meeting do not matter on their own, she said, unless those talks turned into actual agreements, instructions, or directives to departments handling the emergency. If nothing crystallized into a formal decision affecting protection measures or cooperation, then the testimony is not useful enough for this case. (vozpopuli.com) ### What does the “reserved sessions” point mean? This is the legal hinge. The judge leaned on article 23 of the Valencian government law, which treats Consell deliberations as reserved. That does not mean cabinet members can never be questioned about anything. But it does mean the court is reluctant to turn internal cabinet discussion into free-ranging evidence unless there is a concrete operational consequence attached to it. In other words — private political discussion is not automatically criminally relevant. (vozpopuli.com) ### Why these two ministers in particular? Because they sat inside the government orbit on the day that matters. Compromís was trying to probe whether the broader cabinet should have pushed harder for protective action while the floods escalated. But the judge has been pretty consistent on one point: responsibility in this file sits first with the emergency-management chain under the Special Flood Plan, not with every member of the regional executive. (vozpopuli.com) ### Does this mean the wider government is off the hook? Not exactly. It means this judge is separating political responsibility from criminal relevance. The case is still moving, still large, and still heavily contested. Other witnesses have been called, the court has kept digging into timing and decisions around the ES-Alert warning, and the instruction has already required extra judicial support because of its scale. But this specific lane — turning cabinet-level discussion into testimony — remains mostly closed for now. (valenciaplaza.com) ### Why is Fiscalía’s support notable? Because it shows this was not just an opposition-party fishing expedition. Prosecutors also thought the testimony could be useful. The refusal therefore underlines a real gap between the court’s theory of the case and the broader push to widen it. That tension has been visible before in the DANA proceedings, and it keeps surfacing as different parties try to pull the investigation in different directions. (elmundo.es) ### What’s the bottom line? The judge did not say those ministers are irrelevant in a political sense. She said their testimony is not necessary unless someone can tie cabinet talk to concrete emergency orders. That keeps the case centered on who actually commanded the response — and makes it harder, at least for now, to turn the DANA probe into a full examination of the entire Valencian government. (europapress.es) (vozpopuli.com)