The court annuls the sanctions to the young man who appeared without clothes in the City of Justice to the trial for going naked

VALENCIA, 25 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Contentious-Administrative Court number 5 of Valencia has annulled the sanctions imposed on the 29-year-old nudist who last September appeared without clothes in the City of Justice at the trial that had been indicated for having been fined for going naked down the street

The judge rejects that the young man's conduct constitutes an act of "obscene exhibition", since the appellant himself explains it by "his own conception of personal freedom and the defense of the exercise of naturism and what is important is that no element allows us to appreciate that his motivation is directed to the satisfaction of his own libido, so clearly the guy for whom he was sanctioned does not attend.

The magistrate pronounced himself like this, in a sentence of November 15, on two procedures for judicial protection of fundamental rights that ended up accumulated in one: the first one due to inactivity of the administration and appeal before the resolution of the Delegation of the Government of impose a fine of 601 euros for a serious infraction typified in the citizen protection law, and a second by a resolution of the same administration for a fine of 200 euros for a minor infringement of that regulation.

The appellant, a resident of Aldaia, appeared naked before the City of Justice of Valencia, claiming that nudism is "a legal practice" and defending his right to exercise it. However, the young man, Alejandro Colomar, had to get dressed by police instructions to access the premises.

The young man asked for a declaration that his fundamental rights had been violated for having been sanctioned twice for the same conduct; He considered that his right to ideological freedom and conscience and the principles of legality and criminality had also been violated because an alleged alteration of public order had not occurred and he tried to prohibit something that is not expressly prohibited and sanctioned by the regulations. .

In short, he maintained that there had been no attack on sexual freedom and indemnity; no obscene display; neither obstruction nor disobedience or resistance to authority because "you cannot disobey an order that seeks to restrict conduct that is not prohibited". On the other hand, the prosecutor understood that the appealed resolutions had not violated his fundamental rights.

The judge, in the first place, considers, in terms of form, that the administrative act cannot be considered to be deficiently motivated, but rather that it describes the conduct that is considered to constitute an infraction and its classification, which allows knowing the facts . However, in terms of substance, he maintains that the young man's conduct "clearly does not fall within the element of the type related to 'performing or inciting to carry out acts' that violate sexual liberty and indemnity."

Another issue would be, the magistrate points out, that the sanction obeyed "reasons of public convenience and hygiene to prohibit nudity in public spaces", a regulation that the Supreme Court has estimated would not violate the fundamental right to ideological freedom.

However, this is not the case because the light penalty is not imposed on the basis of any local ordinance that penalizes bare nudity in a public space. Therefore, when a sanction is imposed for a conduct that at that time did not constitute an offense or offense according to the regulations, that fine of 200 euros is declared null and void. And as for the serious complaint of 600, of disobedience and accessory to the previous one, since that one did not attend, neither does this one, together with the fact that the police report stated that he left the square after the complaint.