Iberdrola demands the nullity of the accusations of Galán and its subsidiary of Renovables. The electricity company believes that its right of defense has been violated by not giving it access to the case for a year. It considers that the Judge recognizes this situation in the order issued today. The petition also includes Córcoles, Bécker and Orbegozo.
Iberdrola has submitted a letter to the Central Court of Instruction number 6 in which it claims the nullity of all the actions carried out by the magistrate since last July 20, which in case of being accepted would mean reversing the summons as investigated both by the president of the company, Ignacio Galán, as well as the rest of the executives (Córcoles, Bécker and Orbegozo) as well as Iberdrola Renovables.
The complaint filed by the electricity company against its former controller Del Olmo for an alleged theft of billing and falsification of documents was admitted for processing by Instruction Court No. 3 of Bilbao and subsequently assumed by Examining Court No. 6.
Since that time, Iberdrola has not received notification of what has happened in the case since the moment in which its incorporation into the case should have become a reality -that is, since the issuance of the order of July 16, 2020- which has implied in company opinion an obvious violation of their fundamental rights.
The electricity company has also come to request this admission up to four times to the Court and, in fact, in the Order issued by the Instructor today the alleged violation is implicitly recognized.
On the one hand, in its fifth Legal Reasoning, it speaks of the “expulsion of Iberdrola (from the case) in its condition of private accusation up to now”, and, on the other, in its operative part it agrees to “revoke Iberdrola’s condition of private accusation maintained until now “.
The resolution recognizes -as it cannot be otherwise- that Iberdrola had legally attributed the status of accusing party in the procedure from the admission for processing of the complaint, although, the company’s lawyers indicate that this indisputable procedural title has remained. orphan of practical legal translation.
The solution, therefore, cannot now be to expel someone who has not been allowed to exercise their rights as a procedural party for a year, the company concludes.
Failure to call the injured party who has formalized his or her character as an accusing party in the process implies the violation of different precepts since it infringes the ability of the victim to be part of the process, a possibility recognized in our procedural system.
