The SEPI branch of the Leire case has incorporated María de la Concepción Ortiz Fuerte —also mentioned across certain documents as Ordiz Fuertes— into the roster of persons currently investigated regarding suspected irregularities concerning operations across state-owned firms and entities within the orbit of the State Industrial Participation Company (SEPI). Her situation proves especially delicate given that she functions neither as a business director nor as a typical public sector employee, but instead as an individual linked to the monitoring of government procurement.
Ortiz Fuerte is identified by elDiario.es as president of the Central Administrative Court for Public Procurement Appeals and a former senior official at SEPI. This profile places her in a particularly sensitive institutional position: the court she heads is responsible for ruling on appeals concerning public procurement, an area where independence, objectivity, and the appearance of neutrality are essential.
Judge Santiago Pedraz has included her among the 25 people summoned as individuals under investigation in the expansion of the Leire case, a branch examining possible offenses including influence peddling, embezzlement, prevarication, criminal organization or group, and misuse of privileged information. At this stage, her status as an individual under investigation does not imply guilt or conviction, but it does mean she may have to explain before the National Court what role, if any, she played in the events under scrutiny.
The attention surrounding Ortiz Fuerte centers largely on the contract awarded for the Parque Empresarial Principado de Asturias—commonly referred to as PEPA—which constitutes one of the deals scrutinized within the SEPI branch. Based on available reports, authorities are investigating whether the process could have improperly benefited the Navarrese firm Erri Berri by means of a surprisingly low tender coupled with the subsequent dismissal of a challenge brought by a rival bidder.
The significance of her role lies precisely in this oversight stage. A public procurement award can be challenged by a rival company, and the body responsible for ruling on that appeal must act with complete independence. If the president of the Central Administrative Court for Public Procurement Appeals is ultimately investigated over a decision related to a transaction under scrutiny, the issue is not merely criminal: it directly affects confidence in the mechanisms designed to review public procurement.
The PEPA case forms part of a broader investigation that includes transactions involving Tubos Reunidos, Mercasa, ENUSA, Forestalia, and SEPIDES. According to published reports, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the UCO suspect that the Hirurok group, allegedly comprising Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández, and Antxon Alonso, may have sought to influence public and business decisions in order to obtain financial benefits or commissions.
In Ortiz Fuerte’s case, the inquiry must clarify whether the appellate ruling regarding the PEPA contract was strictly a technical decision grounded in the law, or if external pressures linked to the alleged network played a role. This line is crucial. An administrative tribunal can legally sustain a disputed public tender even when no illicit acts took place. Nevertheless, should it come to light that the verdict was orchestrated to benefit a particular enterprise, the institutional blow would be devastating.
The issue is even more serious because procurement committees and administrative procurement appeals courts are mechanisms specifically designed to prevent abuses of power, arbitrariness, and favoritism in the use of public funds. If these safeguards fail or are allegedly instrumentalized, the entire system is called into question. The suspicion would no longer concern only those competing for a contract, but also the guarantee of equal treatment in public procurement.
The National Court will have to determine what information Ortiz Fuerte had access to, what documentation she reviewed, what legal arguments supported the ruling, and whether there was any contact or external influence connected to the other individuals under investigation. It will also be crucial to establish whether her previous relationship with SEPI had any bearing on the interpretation or resolution of the appeal connected to SEPIDES and the Parque Empresarial Principado de Asturias.
From an institutional accountability perspective, her investigation is one of the most sensitive aspects of the SEPI branch. Not because there has been a conviction—there has not—but because it involves an authority responsible for resolving disputes concerning public procurement. When the person expected to act as an impartial arbiter becomes the subject of scrutiny in a case involving alleged bid-rigging, the obligation to ensure complete transparency becomes paramount.
The SEPI branch of the Leire case continues to extend into the areas where public procurement is decided, processed, and reviewed. Within that framework, María de la Concepción Ortiz Fuerte emerges as a key figure in determining whether the oversight mechanisms operated independently or whether they too may have been compromised by the alleged influence network now under investigation by the National Court.
Source: elDiario.es, Cadena SER, La Nueva España, RTVE, El País, Infobae, and Telecinco.