Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Irán Crímenes Shakira Policía Feijóo

The Francos oppose the movable property remaining in the Pazo de Meirás under the protection of the State

The legal services have requested this precautionary measure to avoid deterioration in the event that the Francos transfer them.

- 9 reads.

The Francos oppose the movable property remaining in the Pazo de Meirás under the protection of the State

The legal services have requested this precautionary measure to avoid deterioration in the event that the Francos transfer them


The defense of the family of the dictator Francisco Franco has refused this Friday that certain movable assets located in the Pazo de Meirás remain there under the protection of the State because they understand that there is no danger of excesses occurring on them in the event that they decide to move them, given that the family has kept them for more than 40 years.

This has been stated in the hearing of precautionary measures held in the Court of First Instance Number 70 of Madrid, in which the State Attorney has defended that the assets are not removed from the pazo by the Franco family while it is determined whether a total of 564 assets must become public property.

The Francos' lawyer has maintained that there is no danger of deterioration or disappearance of these assets that justifies the precautionary measure that would prevent them from leaving the pazo, and has stressed that the legal services have not been accurate when it comes to inventorying the assets since, due to example "it is not possible to know against which it is not directed" the precautionary measure. He alleges this part that the request is made "by rejection" and is "highly confusing."

In addition, he has regretted that the State's demand talks about possible "excesses" on those assets by the Francos when they have calmed down to any judicial resolution. He understands that it cannot be taken for granted that excesses will be committed or that they will be damaged by the fact that they are withdrawn, and he has highlighted that the dictator's family has guarded them for more than 40 years, so "if Today there is something to protect in Meirás, it is not thanks to the State but to the family".

For this reason, the defense points out that the 'periculum in mora', the risk that something undergoes changes while deciding on the merits of the matter, in this case it is a "lucubration" because the risk of loss or certain deterioration must be proven . He adds that this measure is usually denied when the property in question has been kept by the person in a "normal way" or has not removed them from the action of justice.

On the other hand, the defense has emphasized that the State enjoys very broad powers to protect assets without having to resort to the lien of the judicial deposit, and has added that these tools are as effective or more than those requested in the precautionary measures, such as inspecting the state of conservation of property owned by individuals. MISSING ASSETS

For the State Attorney's Office, there is a danger of deterioration and loss of property, and it has maintained that in fact the documentary heritage is in a "deteriorated" state of conservation, which is why it requires "conservative measures".

In addition, it has explained that it has been verified that 14 assets that existed in 1938, have disappeared in 1975, for which reason it has argued that there is indeed a risk, deterioration and loss of heritage.

However, the legal services of the State have denied that it is a seizure and that with the precautionary measure what is intended is that competent officials in patrimony can work in the pazo to prevent the property owned by the Franco family from deteriorating or being lost. . Thus, they insist that it is a proportional measure.

During the hearing, the Francos have also criticized that the different reports prepared by various actors on the movable property contained in the pazo are contradictory and create confusion by using different enumerations and references.

But the State Attorney's Office, in its turn to reply, has reminded the defense that although the different documents use different references, the description of the assets "is what it is" and they are perfectly located and photographed.

In the same way, it has indicated that the documentary heritage - of which the defense complained that there was no photography - is documentary heritage regardless of its content because its value derives from the people who produced it and from the place where they were recorded. .

The legal profession also maintains that "fumus boni iuris" is present in the precautionary measures --appearance of good law-- because what they do is identify historical and documentary assets that, being cultural heritage, enjoy imprescriptibility.

To this he has added that the defense cannot speak of res judicata because there is no final sentence in the procedure and because during the claim of the immovable property -the pazo itself- the existing movable property was not known.

The Xunta de Galicia -which has adhered to the lawsuit together with the Sada Council-- has indicated during the hearing that the precautionary measure is proportional and that it does not imply a disturbance for the Francos since they do not have to worry about custody and security of those assets.

In addition, the lawyer of the Xunta has explained that the goods -of simple ornament-- are not for personal or habitual use of the defendants, so there is no damage. However, he does consider that there is a danger of "irreversible" situations in the event that they are moved from there, as the family wants to do, because they are assets of not only economic value but of a cultural and artistic nature. "If something is lost, it cannot be replaced, if there is damage or losses, there is a serious impact on the general interest," he stressed.

Thus, he considers that the transfer of assets that the family intends is a risk because "accidents and damage can always occur" and because "its size--makes its conservation endangered."

For its part, the City Council of Sada has argued that it is not necessary to prove bad faith or negligence on the part of the defendant to request this precautionary measure.