The Supreme Court agreed that it is the National Court that must reexamine the legal coverage of the committee created by the government after the April 28 power outage, thus rejecting Iberdrola’s request.
In an order of December 4 to which EFE had access, the litigation chamber ruled on which jurisdiction is competent to examine the legal coverage of the committee, and concludes that it is the National Court.
Last May, Iberdrola presented a brief to the Supreme Court to request information on the legal coverage of the analytical committee created by the government to investigate the energy zero of April 28, which left the Iberian Peninsula without electricity for hours.
The company sought to know if this committee had legal coverage, whose objective was to analyze the causes of the breakdown, for which it requested information from the companies and sent technicians to their facilities, and on which Iberdrola doubted its legal coverage.
The Supreme Court does not share Iberdrola’s thesis, which considers that the creation of the said Committee was carried out by the National Security Council, considered the delegated Commission of the Government.
The National Security Council limited itself, during its meeting of April 30, 2025, to adopting guidelines for the creation of the committee carried out within the framework of the provisions of the national security law, specifies the order.
The aforementioned committee was created by decree communicated by the third vice-president of the Government and Minister of Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge who, “in execution of the guidelines decided by the National Security Council, determined its legal regime, its composition and the date of the start of its activity”.
In short, the material action constituting a de facto path which affects the creation and functioning of the said committee must be attributed to the third vice-president and minister of ecological transition and demographic challenge.
For this reason, it is not up to the Supreme Court to control its actions, but rather to the administrative contentious chamber of the National Court, since it is an administrative action carried out by a minister following the directives of the National Security Council, which does not affect the determination of the competence of the competent judicial body for its control, concludes the High Court.
About The Author
