The Madrid Court files the complaint against Dimas Gimeno, former president of El Corte Inglés

MADRID, 18 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Court of Instruction Number 35 of Madrid has agreed to file the case in which it was investigated whether the former president of El Corte Inglés Dimas Gimeno had spied on the former communication director of the Ángel Barutell group, his wife Gloria Allende and the journalist Eulogio López since there was no "no indication" of his participation in the events.

In an order this Sunday, to which Europa Press has had access, Judge María Inmaculada Lova orders the provisional dismissal for Dimas, for his brother Miguel Ángel Gimeno and for their mother, María Antonia Álvarez, who were being investigated from the last May as a result of a complaint filed by the alleged spies.

In it, María Antonia was placed as the warper of the espionage, her son Miguel Ángel as the executor and Dimas as the person in charge of paying the spies who would have carried out the surveillance actions.

Now, however, the instructor justifies her decision to file the case by pointing out that Dimas "was not present in most of the meetings and certainly not in the initial one", in which the investigation would have been hatched. But it is that, in addition, the former president of El Corte Ingles would not have been there either when the alleged "request to enter a code on the mobile" of those under surveillance "occurred".

In this sense, Judge Lova makes it clear that there are also "no indications that in January 2018 Miguel Ángel Gimeno carried out the reported cloning, nor that his mother was instigator or aware of it."

In the initial complaint it was pointed out that Miguel Ángel Gimeno, in collusion with his mother and brother, had cloned the phones of Barutell, his wife and the journalist Eulogio López. To corroborate it, they provided their testimonies and an expert report prepared by a security expert where it was stated that the journalist's card had been duplicated.

However, as the judge now points out, that expert confirmed in court that "he limited himself to seeing a photograph of a received message and interpreted what that message could be due to, although he did not analyze the mobile." Thus, the expert "could not say who carried out the cloning" reported.