Spanish judge rejects Zapatero appeal over 1.3 million euro jewelry appraisal

Ruling on expert jewelry appraisal

National Court Judge José Luis Calama has dismissed a second appeal filed by former Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero against appointing Joyería Yanes to inspect jewelry seized from his office. The pieces were recovered on 19 May during a court-ordered search of a safe in Zapatero's professional workplace in connection with the Plus Ultra inquiry. A preliminary assessment by Joyería Ansorena placed the initial value of the seized collection at 1.3 million euros. Following that initial assessment, Calama determined that a more detailed analysis was necessary and commissioned Joyería Yanes to perform the examination. The former prime minister's legal defense lodged an appeal of reform against the appointment, arguing that an additional expert analysis lacked legal justification and duplicate appraisals were unwarranted.

Mandate and technical scope of the second analysis

In rejecting the defense motion, Judge Calama stated that criminal proceedings are not governed by any principle requiring a single expert report. The magistrate emphasized that contrasting independent technical evaluations provides necessary clarity in areas involving qualitative assessments where single answers are not readily available. Zapatero's legal team, led by attorney Víctor Moreno Catena, had maintained that any necessary follow-up work should have been assigned to Joyería Ansorena instead of an outside firm. Calama rejected this demand, explaining that the second appraisal serves a distinct technical purpose rather than repeating previous calculations.

The new expertise is not limited to reiterating an overall economic valuation of the pieces, but aims to obtain, to the extent technically possible, an individualized and exhaustive description of each of them, the identification and characterization of metals and gems, the location of marks or hallmarks, the estimation of age, the determination of elements relating to origin or manufacturing, and a singularized replacement valuation regarding each object.

Dismissal of bias claims against the appraiser

Zapatero's legal filing further challenged the appointment by alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of Joyería Yanes. The defense pointed to prior public statements made to media outlets by the firm's general director, Juan Yanes, regarding the authenticity and financial valuation of the specific jewelry pieces. Judge Calama ruled that this issue had already been resolved when the court previously dismissed a formal recusal against the expert, noting that revisiting the decision would cause procedural disruption. The magistrate emphasized that selecting specialized entities is an inherent part of the judicial body's investigative authority, provided no objective circumstances question the expert's competence.

Once the potential utility of a new expert report has been appreciated, the choice of the professional or entity responsible for its execution falls within the scope of technical and procedural discretion corresponding to the judicial body, provided that no objective circumstances arise that would allow doubting their professional capacity or impartiality.

Defense participation and procedural rights

The court also turned down a request by Zapatero's defense to appoint an independent expert to attend the examination simultaneously alongside Joyería Yanes. Judge Calama ruled that joint expert inspections are legally warranted only when dealing with perishable evidence or physical items that risk irreversible alteration during testing, conditions that do not apply to jewelry. The magistrate concluded that the disagreement of the defense with the chosen procedure cannot override the investigative powers granted to the instructing judge by law. The ruling reaffirmed that Zapatero maintains full rights during the ongoing instruction phase to submit counter-appraisals, alternative expert reports, or formal requests to expand the judicial findings.