The case that originated in Orihuela has drawn intense attention. The Court of Cassation has explained why a longer deadline was granted, extending the decision period from ten ordinary days to up to two months for resolving the ongoing process. This case is noted as the largest corruption investigation ever conducted in the province, with origins tied to the Brugal operation.
A so‑called lawsuit raised questions about irregularities in how Orihuela City Council awarded the garbage collection and street cleaning contract. The court that tried the case ultimately acquitted 34 defendants, ruling that the main accusation lacked probative value. The decision raised questions about the evidence behind the charges.
The wiretaps, a key element in the initial accusations, were conducted over three years but later deemed invalid. So were house searches, police surveillance, and some documents. The judicial process involved a long path of appeals and reconsiderations that stretched across multiple years.
The 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, initially set aside for unrelated reasons, convened on February 28 to review the prosecution’s appeal. The Public Prosecutor’s Office challenged that decision, and a retrial pressure built through 2019. A different court handled the proceedings between March and December 2019 in a total of 58 sessions.
Within the Alicante division, the panel involved judges including Vicente Magro, with composition set by the lead figures Andrés Martínez Arrieta, Andrés Palomo, Leopoldo Puente, and Ana María Ferrer as speakers. The proceedings unfolded under a complex network of actors and legal questions that spanned many years.
Among those acquitted in this case were José Manuel Medina and Mónica Lorente, former mayors from the PP party in Orihuela. Ángel Fenoll, a prominent local businessman, received a final ruling for tax evasion and for involvement in a related conspiracy about the Calp garbage handling scheme. That matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, awaiting further resolution.
Also awaiting outcomes are José Joaquín Ripoll, a former PP politician, and businessman Enrique Ortiz, along with other figures tied to the Brugal investigations. These cases connect to another line of proceedings involving alleged irregularities at Vega Baja’s waste facility, commonly referred to in local discourse as a bounty program linked to disposal operations.
In addition to Orihuela’s former councilors, the broader case surrounding the city’s dumping operations involved eight councilors and their representatives, including members of the opposition during the 2003–2007 and 2007–2011 terms. Involved entities included Colsur SL and Proambiente SL, with ties to the companies themselves and to family members within Fenoll’s circle. The scope of the inquiry extended to multiple actors connected to waste services and municipal contracts across the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Ten crimes
The Public Prosecutor’s Office and a special prosecutor acting on behalf of the Orihuela City Council pursued charges ranging from terrorism and fraud to perjury, bribery, prohibited negotiations with authorities, influence peddling, disclosure of privileged information, electoral offenses, illegal association, coercion, and blackmail. Prosecutors sought prison terms spanning from several months to nearly four decades depending on the count and its severity.
The options considered by the Supreme Court included reversing the prior decision and ordering a new trial in a different court due to events that date back more than twenty years. The court prepared to issue a new verdict after reviewing which cancellations were accepted and which were rejected, a process that underscores the ongoing complexity of these intertwined matters. The outcome remains shaped by ongoing legal scrutiny and the evolving interpretation of evidence and procedures by the appellate system, as noted in official court materials and subsequent reports.
Throughout this saga, the emphasis has been on ensuring due process while weighing the long history of allegations against a broad group of public officials, business figures, and their associates. The case illustrates how long-term investigations can unfold in a modern judicial framework, with multiple rounds of review, retrials, and complex evidentiary questions that continue to shape the public record and the careers of those involved.