THE Badajoz Provincial Court once again ratified the continuity of open judicial information to the brother of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, indicating that “there is no violation of fundamental rights”. The First Section rejected the appeal presented by Francisco Martos against the decision of the president of the Court of Instruction number 3 of Badajoz, Beatriz Biedmato open a separate room that allows the Central Operational Unit of the Civil Guard (UCO) enter emails in the Badajoz Provincial Delegation of David Sánchez and others were investigated, to clarify the possible creation of a job ad hoc for the brother of the general manager.
In a 32-page resolution, to which OKDIARIO had access, the magistrates emphasize that “when processing the appeal, several preliminary questions of great importance must be taken into account”, recalling that the Chamber had already previously analyzed the legality of the contested order. on two previous occasions, dated July 9, 2024. “We can only refer to what has already been highlighted in these previous orders, since the arguments presented by the parties, including Mr. Martos Ortiz, are similar,” the resolution adds.
“We observe that the resolution now appealed was extremely careful with the determination of the subjective and objective scope affected, against what the appeal provides, motivating compliance with the requirements”, insist for the second time of the Court of Badajoz on the case that traps the orchestra director David Sánchez, known as name of David Azagra.
Likewise, the magistrates emphasize that “the UCO’s request is not simply transcribed, since it was made a specific assessment data already included in the main file, in which the requested documentation was provided to the Provincial Deputation of Badajoz. That the UCO profession was not based solely on experience of similar cases “This is something which, as noted above, is reflected in the content of the application.”
The Court also rejects the objection relating to the necessity of the measure, stating that “it is obvious that the obtaining of these acts considered as preparatory has a broader and immediate clarifying effect for deepen in research”, as instructed by the instructor.
Concerning the alleged insufficiency of the subjective extension, the Court considers that “there is no doubt what was decided nor request that more alleged participants in the events be included; “The UCO proposal was followed in the manner established in the Order.”
“Minimal impact”
The magistrates also respond to arguments on the right to secrecy of communications and the right to privacy, emphasizing that the intervention is limited to business emails linked to the case in question, the impact on privacy is therefore minimum.
Concerning the alleged fundamental rights, the Order concludes that “the violations of fundamental rights reported, such as the right to effective judicial protection or to secrecy of communications, nor the right to a trial with guarantees and presumption of innocence”. The rights of third parties have been respected by allowing them to appear in the case, so that “the annulment requested under the procedure is not applicable.” For all these reasons, the Court rejects the appeal and confirms the contested resolution.
