Collaborators AreaFundamental rights
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Violation of constitutional rights to personal freedom and defense
In this case, an individual under investigation was detained within preliminary proceedings for an alleged organization dedicated to hashish trafficking from Ceuta to the mainland. According to the investigation, there was a kind of "security structure " formed by civil guards stationed at the Port of Ceuta, who would facilitate the operation in exchange for money. Before the court appearance where the decision on provisional imprisonment was to be made, the court handed him a document called "summary of charges", supposedly to inform him of the "essential elements" of the case, although the proceedings were secret. This summary attributed criminal offenses of organized crime, against public health, and bribery to him, stating that there were indications from intercepted and recorded conversations, for example, that he had received 5,000 euros for a past action and that there was an agreed price of 120,000 euros to be distributed.
During the appearance, the defense requested access to specific proceedings in order to discuss the deprivation of liberty deprivation of liberty , especially to those conversations cited as a key clue. The investigating judge denied it. However, the decision was made to remand in custody with no bail was ordered, based on indications of involvement and risks such as flight, repeat offenses, and destruction or concealment of evidence. The individual under investigation appealed, requesting access to the proceedings for a full defense. nullity of appearance and of the detention order, because he understood that without access to those essential elements (especially the conversations) he could not defend himself properly. Both the court and the National Court maintained the detention, considering the "broad summary" provided to be sufficient.
Finally, the Constitutional Court ruled in his favor , recalling that, even if there is secrecy in the proceedings, that does not eliminate the right to access the essential elements to challenge a deprivation of liberty, and that access must be real and effective , not just a generic reference. Here, since the intercepted conversation was the main evidence to order the detention, denying its recording or transcription prevented an effective defense and violated the rights to freedom and defense.
In claims arising from criminal acts, our lawyers can provide you with the appropriate advice and exercise the defense of your interestsCONTENIDO RELACIONADO
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
-
Gender violence
Illegal detention and attempted homicide
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.