The Spanish Audiencia Nacional has opened a judicial investigation into a 53 million euro [1] pandemic rescue package granted to Plus Ultra Líneas Aéreas.
This investigation focuses on potential irregularities in how the Spanish government distributed emergency funds to preserve air connectivity during the COVID-19 crisis. The case examines whether the aid was granted through proper administrative channels or via undue political influence.
The rescue was approved in March 2021 [4] through the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI). The funds were intended to sustain the Madrid-based airline after the collapse of global tourism, but the process has since become a point of contention regarding transparency and oversight.
Magistrado José Luis Calama accepted the case and ordered the instruction of the cause on March 3, 2026 [5]. The probe follows allegations that the technical reports used to justify the rescue were unsigned. Bartolomé Lora, SEPI vice-president, said he was the "de facto right hand" of Minister María Jesús Montero during the process, according to a report by Libertad Digital.
Financial recovery of the funds has been slow. In March 2026, a spokesperson for Plus Ultra said the company paid 3 million euros [2] to SEPI, which brought the total amount reimbursed to 12 million euros [3]. The airline is currently negotiating a new repayment schedule to settle the remaining balance of the 53 million euro [1] loan.
While the government maintains the loan was a necessary measure to prevent the airline's collapse, the judicial inquiry will determine if the lack of formal signatures on technical documents constitutes a legal breach. The investigation seeks to clarify the specific roles of government officials in bypassing standard protocols to secure the funding.
“A judicial probe examines the 53 million euro aid package granted to the carrier during the COVID-19 tourism collapse.”
The investigation into Plus Ultra reflects a broader trend of judicial scrutiny over pandemic-era emergency spending in Europe. By examining whether technical reports were bypassed or left unsigned, the court is testing the boundary between 'emergency agility' and administrative negligence. If the court finds that political influence overrode technical requirements, it could set a legal precedent for the accountability of state-owned holding companies like SEPI in future industrial rescues.
