THE Madrid Provincial Court attempts to clarify what procedural error prevented this Monday its 23rd Section from being able to examine the two appeals which requested to close or limit the appeal Begoña affair.
This court has already ordered the lawyer from the Administration of Justice (formerly called judicial secretary) of the Court in charge of the file to clarify this point.
At present, there is no date for Section 23 of the Court of Madrid to reconvene to study the appeals awaiting resolution in the case in which it appears as defendant. Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez. But at least it won’t be for another three weeks.
In fact, this Monday, the magistrates of Section 23 chose to suspend their deliberation after examining the documentation sent by the Court in charge of this investigation, the Court of Instruction number 41 of Madrid, whose president is Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. They had detected an apparent error that prevented them from making the right decision.
In principle, the requests they had to study were: that formulated by Gómez’s defense, exercised by the lawyer Antonio Camachoand that of the public prosecutor. Both parties have requested to close or limit the Begoña affair.
The first appeal was filed by the defense lawyer on July 8. With this, Camacho challenged a judge’s order, dated a week earlier, in which Peinado stated that he was investigating “all acts, behaviors and behaviors that were carried out [por Gómez] since her husband is president of the government and which appear in the initial complaint”.
According to Camacho, such action was prospective, which is prohibited by law. Just two days after presenting its appeal, the prosecution joined the defense arguments and asked the Madrid Provincial Court to close or stop proceedings. “generic and lacking specificity“and he seemed to walk until he became”a general cause.
However, this Monday, section 23 suspended its deliberations because it did not have a copy of the appeal presented by Camacho. How would this be possible? Sources from the Provincial Court explain to EL ESPAÑOL what this apparent error would consist of: if the court had to analyze the requests of Gómez’s defense and the prosecutor, it is because the first would have adhered to the appeal of the second. This is why in the documentation relating to the deliberation, both are identified, in the header of the documents, as appellants.
But in a resolution signed this Monday, judges Rosario Esteban Meilán, Jesús Gómez-Angulo and Enrique Bergés de Ramón declare having detected “the existence of a direct appeal against the order of July 1, 2024”. Indeed, this would be the appeal presented by Camacho on July 8. “AND which was not mentioned in the referral letter nor in the brief testimony which accompanies it”, as the court expressed this Monday.
Not having a copy of the said document or knowing the “state of progress” of it, the judges of Article 23 chose to suspend their projects and requested clarification from the Administration’s lawyer of Justice assigned to the Peinado court. They also consider it “relevant for deliberation”.
On the other hand, the Provincial Court had requested the presentation of all the documentation in the file in order to render its decision. He received it on the 13th. It is one of those hundreds of pages containing allusions to the appeal signed by Camacho and presented on the 8th.
That is why, not having said appeal signed by Camacho for the defense of Gómez, the magistrates of said section chose to suspend the session, during which it was expected that after the relevant deliberation, they would reach a conclusion which would be known in the coming days. years. There are three scenarios: they support Peinado, they order him to file charges, or they simply force him to limit the focus of the investigation. The Sánchez government also wanted this decision to be made as quickly as possible.
The “Begoña case”
If this deliberation had taken place, it would have been the second time that the Madrid court analyzed this instruction. At the end of May, as soon as Peinado opened the file based on a union complaint Clean handsthe prosecution presented an appeal in which it requested the archives of the Begoña affair.
The petition was unsuccessful. However, the court did divided the case into three blocksbased on the issues reported in the complaint, which was based solely on newspaper clippings.
The first of these parts contained erroneous or false information, which was excluded. Another part referred to the two letters of recommendation signed by Begoña Gómez in favor of a company linked to the businessman Carlos Barrabéswho is a professor of the master’s degree that Pedro Sánchez’s wife co-directed at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM).
Barrabés was summoned as a witness by Peinado, who, shortly after, assigned him the status of person investigated, as was the case with the rector of the UCM, Joaquín Goyache.
A third part of the complaint concerned the $1 million bailout loan that the Sánchez government granted to the airline. Air Europe to mitigate the effects of Covid-19. The company belongs to Globalia and the Manos Cleans complaint highlighted several links between Begoña Gómez and Javier Hidalgoformer CEO of said holding.
The part relating to Barabbas was taken over in June by the European Public Prosecutor’s Officeby allocating EU funds. A report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard, the full content of which was put forward by EL ESPAÑOL, limited the relationship of the person under investigation with Globalia to the fact that she had coincided with Hidalgo during a couple of tourism. events.
For this reason, Peinado’s research is currently focused on the conditions in which the master’s degree that Begoña Gómez co-directed, from 2020 to 2024, at the Complutense University was designed and launched.
The “software”
Indeed, in a recent resolution, the Madrid Provincial Court gave Peinado carte blanche to examine a complaint against Gómez, filed by the Catholic association Make yourself heardwho accused him of having “appropriated” a software created by the UCM and having offered the advantages of this tool through a private individual company, Transforma TSC SL.
In fact, this company, which is 100% owned by Sánchez’s wife, has the same name as the Complutense chair that she directed (Extraordinary Chair of Competitive Social Transformation TSC).
Hazte Oír’s complaint fell before a court other than Peinado, the Court of Instruction number 48 of Madrid. But the Provincial Court, after considering that the reported events were “related” to those already the subject of an investigation, empowered the judge Begoña affair to assume it.
