The Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Las Palmas has appealed the order of the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, issued by Judge Salvador Alba, which has lifted the precautionary measure of closure of the Stratvs winery. Thus, the Public Prosecutor's Office requests that the facilities remain sealed, as agreed by the investigating judge, Silvia Muñoz, in December 2013.
In its appeal, the Prosecutor's Office alleges that there is "lack of sufficient motivation to justify the change of criteria", since the same Section of the Provincial Court endorsed the closure in 2014, when the property filed a first appeal against this precautionary measure. In addition, other sections of the Court have also rejected other similar appeals filed later by Juan Francisco Rosa and the company BTL.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor's Office also emphasizes that with its new decision, the Court would be allowing "the operation of a winery that lacks the qualifying titles and that, according to the urban planning that applies to it, is impossible to legalize".
"It has only taken into account interested statements"
In his order, notified on January 2, Judge Alba argued that a precautionary measure of this type "cannot be maintained indefinitely over time" and considered "excessive" the time it had lasted. However, it should be remembered that the closure order was not "indefinite", but a period of 5 years was set that has not yet been fulfilled. And that order was endorsed at the time by Alba himself and by the same Section of the Court that has now revoked it.
In its appeal, the Prosecutor's Office refutes the "scarce grounds" provided by Salvador Alba in the new resolution, and points out that it incurs in a "frontal and unjustified collision with the previous resolutions" of the Provincial Court and the magistrate himself. In addition, it adds that the order has "only taken into account the statements that are narrated in an interested way in the writing that requests the lifting of the precautionary measure, and that have been accepted without any criticism or objection", despite the fact that they are based on reports from parties commissioned and paid for by the main defendant, Juan Francisco Rosa.
"Simply, the criteria has been changed with the same data existing for three years, and this change of criteria is reasoned in that there are new reports and documents provided, when this is not really the case, and it resorts to purely substantive reasons, even though, curiously, it reiterates several times that it does not enter to assess the facts object of accusation", concludes the Prosecutor's Office.
In contrast to these reports from parties, which deny that there is a water network in La Geria and that polluting spills occurred, the Public Prosecutor's Office once again recalls all the expert reports that are part of the case, which confirm that these spills occurred while the winery was open, as well as the "irrefutable existence" of underground water. Therefore, it insists that "once the existence of polluting spills has been verified", "lifting the precautionary measure does affect the protected legal asset".
"Incomprehensible" that it is allowed to reopen "when it is illegal"
In addition, the Prosecutor's Office insists that "it is incomprehensible that the precautionary measure is lifted and the winery is opened when its operation is illegal due to the lack of qualifying titles and the frontal contradiction with the urban planning that applies to it".
The judge Alba himself referred to this in his first order endorsing the closure in 2014, in which he stated that the possible "economic damage" caused by this measure to the owner "is not caused by the precautionary measure but by the irregularities that have been verified and are being subject to a criminal process". However, in the new order the judge makes no reference to the urban situation or the other crimes investigated in this case.
For all these reasons, the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that there is an "absolute lack of justification and argumentation in the change of criteria of the Chamber when lifting a precautionary measure that they themselves confirmed", especially "if we take into account that the holding of the trial is imminent, as we are waiting for the Chamber to set the date of the same".
In this regard, the Prosecutor's Office recalls that it is precisely that same Section of the Court that must set the date, since it is the one that will be in charge of judging a part of the case. The other is in the hands of the TSJC, which has already set the trial for next June.
