The Provincial Court of Madrid has ordered the judge in the Neurona case to open two separate pieces relating to the alleged use as a babysitter of an adviser to the Minister for Equality, Irene Montero, and to the party’s donations to the 25M Foundation, which the examining magistrate had derived to other organs.
In a car to which Efe has had access, Section 30 of the Provincial Court of Madrid partially estimates an appeal filed by Voxagainst the order of March 3, 2021 in which the head of the Court of Instruction number 42 of Madrid decided to open three new procedures on the match that were derived for distribution and that fell to three different courts, all after receiving an extension of complaint by former Podemos lawyer Monica Carmona.
One of these procedures referred to the alleged payment with party funds to an adviser to Irene Montero who would have been a babysitter with the daughter of the now minister , according to the complaint; another to the possibility that the then general secretary of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, will keep the costs of a trial, and the third to the donations made by Podemos to the Paulo Freire Popular School project through the 25M Institute and to the Institute itself.
The last two cases were archived months ago by the courts in which they fell and the first continues its course in the Court of Instruction number 46 of Madrid.
But now the Court of Madrid partially upholds the appeal that Vox filed requesting the opening of separate pieces for these procedures , and orders the judge to open them on the alleged case of the babysitter and on the donations to the 25M Institute, rejecting instead that he do the same with the case of Pablo Iglesias.
“In this situation and in order to avoid further delays in the present procedure initiated in June 2020, despite the fact that its procedure is urgent (…) this court considers it more appropriate to open the corresponding separate pieces of investigation to determine , first, if each fact in itself constitutes a criminal offense for, second, its possible criminal connection with those investigated here and with this the instructor agrees what is appropriate in your case”, argues the Chamber on the advisability of opening these two pieces separated.
On the contrary, the Section understands that it is not appropriate to open a separate piece on the investigation referring to Pablo Iglesias.due “to lack of data” confirming that the former leader of Podemos collected the money for the costs of a process held in Pamplona, ​​nor that it is stated “that he had an obligation to reintegrate it either to said professionals (prosecutors) or to the party”
In the In the same order, dated October 29, the Chamber rejects the claim of Vox and Podemos to annul the order of the investigating judge because they could not appeal to the court itself, since it understands that if they could do so and in fact they were responds by virtue of an appeal in the higher body.
It also rejects the resource of Podemosin her claim to expel Monica Carmona’s brief from the proceeding in which she expanded her initial complaint, because the Chamber understands that the judge “is obliged to order the investigative actions leading to verifying whether there are indications of criminality in the facts denounced and on the person or persons who are the object of the same”.
By accepting, as Podemos requests, that a separate piece not be opened to investigate whether Pablo Iglesias kept the legal costs of a process, Section 30 of the Hearing takes the opportunity to make clear “how debatable the possibility of appealing the decision of the judge” at this point, when Podemos would be harmed in that process and instead in the Neurona case it is investigated for an alleged electoral crime.
