The Court Orders Journalist Maribel Vilaplana to Testify About Her Meeting with Mazón on the Day of the Dana

The Second Section of the Provincial Court of Valencia has partially upheld an appeal filed by a private prosecution and has ordered that a statement be taken from journalist Maribel Vilaplana, who dined with the President of the Generalitat in a restaurant on October 29, 2024, as a witness in the criminal case concerning the dana being investigated at the Third Court of First Instance in Catarroja.

The six judges of this court have thus overturned the decision made by the investigating judge in a ruling issued on May 12, which she herself confirmed on June 16 by dismissing a reform appeal.

The Court considered the letter released by the journalist through the media, after the contested resolution was issued, which was added to the proceedings by an order dated September 11, 2025, in which the investigating judge again denied the testimonial.

The Court concludes that dismissing the possibility that the journalist, "in a judicial setting, with the demands and characteristics of a procedural diligence, could offer elements of interest not mentioned in the letter she published, is premature."

"It cannot be ruled out that, questioned under the conditions and guarantees of the criminal process, she may provide details or nuances that could be of interest to the investigation. Her testimony, moreover, could provide information known only to her, the President of the Generalitat, and their interlocutors," states the appeal ruling.

In the Court's view, "the diligence in question appears to be pertinent and suitable, a priori, to provide relevant information about the decision-making process on the afternoon of October 29, which is the subject of the ongoing criminal investigation."

The Court agrees with the investigating judge that the President of the Generalitat, due to his status as a privileged person, "is outside the subjective scope of the investigation she leads," but clarifies that this "does not prevent the carrying out of procedures that are pertinent and useful to the investigation."

"For now, it is appropriate to advance the investigation (...) and only if the investigating judge detects the presence of reinforced, founded indications of criminality against the president and, after submitting a reasoned statement, the TSJ shares the judge's assessment, could the subjective scope of the investigation be extended to him, and the Superior Court of Justice would be the competent body for this," it adds.

Thus, the Court limits the scope of the testimony to "what the witness might know about what the President of the Generalitat said when communicating by phone with the then Minister of Interior and Justice," as well as the "comments" the head of the Consell "might make following those conversations" or "anything else she might have learned during the time she spent with the president on the afternoon of October 29, 2024, regarding the Cecopi meeting," among other aspects.

The Second Section of the provincial judicial body has issued three other rulings this Thursday in response to as many appeals in the Dana case.

The first of these rejects the popular prosecution's attempt, exercised by the Valores party, to formally charge a witness, the head of Climatology at the State Meteorological Agency (Aemet) in the Valencian Community.

The second ruling dismisses the appeal by the prosecution exercised by Vox and rejects that the investigating judge should summon nine engineers and architects who appeared in the Senate's Dana investigation commission.

Finally, the third ruling partially upholds the appeals of the Prosecutor's Office and the two defendants and overturns the investigating judge's decision to require future popular prosecutions to be represented and directed by one of the already represented parties.

In general, the Court sees no obstacles and considers it "feasible" for popular prosecutions to be grouped into one or several accusations, but rejects the formula proposed in its appeal by the Prosecutor's Office and those who joined it, and therefore agrees to maintain the current decision of the investigating judge not to group them.

As for the private prosecutions, the Court resolves that their grouping is not appropriate at this initial stage of the process, "since, despite what has been alleged, the claimed undue delays have not been established in any way."