A court investigation into Víctor Acosta, Vox’s municipal spokesperson in Alcalá de Henares, places serious complaints where they belong: before a judicial process. The information available requires a clear distinction between the opening of that inquiry and any conclusion about criminal liability.
ElDiario.es reported on 10 November that two municipal employees filed complaints against Acosta over alleged workplace and sexual harassment, threats, and disclosure of secrets. The outlet also reported that the court opened an investigation and summoned a witness to give evidence. That is a meaningful procedural development: the allegations are now the subject of judicial action, rather than solely an internal political dispute.
There is also a separate political antecedent. According to the same report, Alcalá de Henares mayor Judith Piquet removed Acosta as second deputy mayor in June. That administrative decision neither resolves the case nor replaces the court’s work. Yet it does not remove the need for public accountability when complaints concern a municipal officeholder and council employees.
The defensible response is not to anticipate a verdict. It is to expect the inquiry to proceed with due process and to reject the idea that judicial caution should mean institutional silence. The available excerpt does not include the court order or full responses from Acosta, Vox, or the council. The reported conduct must therefore remain attributed to the complainants and to the news report.
The next reported procedural step is the witness testimony mentioned by ElDiario.es. Until further rulings or procedural information emerge, the central fact is narrow: a judicial investigation has been opened into the complaints; criminal liability has not been established.
Sources
- elDiario.es · Source date: 2026-11-10
Independent editorial content. WUA is not affiliated with any political party. 2026-11-10