On 4 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné, answering a parliamentary question from MEP Alvise Pérez (NI), declined to reopen the Commission's 2020 authorisation of Spain's recapitalisation aid scheme for Plus Ultra, citing the legality confirmed by EU courts and the absence of new information justifying a review. Séjourné also refused to comment on ongoing Spanish judicial inquiries involving the airline, including references to a 2020 meeting between former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and José Luis Escrivá, then Minister for Inclusion and now Governor of the Bank of Spain, and to social security certificates indicating no overdue debts before Plus Ultra received EUR 53 million from Spain's SEPI fund.
The answer, which responds to Pérez's three questions, firmly rejects any Commission intervention: it will not ask Spain to verify the accuracy of eligibility conditions, will not assess whether new judicial information requires a review of Spain's control mechanisms for SEPI aid, and will not evaluate EU-level standards for national central bank governors on conflicts of interest or cooling-off periods. Séjourné stressed that the Commission does not intend to substitute itself for the courts responsible for reviewing the acts of the Spanish administration, nor to comment on the involvement of current or former Spanish officials in the granting of aid.
The Commission's position rests on the legal history of the case: the scheme was authorised on 31 July 2020 (State Aid SA.57659), and its legality was subsequently confirmed by the General Court (T-628/20, EU:T:2021:514) and the Court of Justice (C-441/21 P, EU:C:2024:447). Séjourné also noted that individual aid decisions under the scheme were open to appeal by interested parties at the time. He added that while the Spanish scheme requires beneficiaries to have no outstanding social security debts, this condition is not a requirement for compatibility with the single market.
the Commission treats the Plus Ultra case as closed, deferring to judicial review and national administrative responsibility. It offers no new measures, no timeline for follow-up, and no commitment to revisit State aid control mechanisms or central bank governance standards. For stakeholders, the impact is moderate: the Commission's refusal to reopen the case provides legal certainty for Spain and for beneficiaries of the recapitalisation scheme, but it leaves unresolved concerns raised by Pérez about transparency and conflicts of interest. The answer may disappoint those seeking EU-level scrutiny of national central bank governors' ethics, but it reinforces the Commission's stance that State aid decisions, once validated by EU courts, will not be revisited absent concrete new evidence.