MADRID, 2 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Provincial Court of Madrid has refused access to the list of calls of the cousin of the mayor of Madrid, José Luis Martínez Almeida, at the time that Judge Adolfo Carretero is investigating in relation to the alleged fraud against the Madrid City Council in the purchase of medical supplies to Luis Medina and Alberto Luceño.
This is stated in an order, to which Europa Press had access, in which the Chamber dismisses the appeal filed by Más Madrid against the decision of Judge Carretero for which last May he denied the proceedings demanded by this popular accusation in the framework of the criminal procedure followed against Medina and his then partner.
In the resolution, the instructor rejected the investigative steps taken by the appellant in relation to the investigation of the telephone numbers of María de la Cebosa, professor at Medina and president of the CIS university, and Carlos Martínez Almeida, as well as various requests for information to telephone operators about their telephone lines and those under investigation.
Más Madrid claimed to have access in the case to the historical list of outgoing and incoming calls between them on March 10 and 30, 2020 and, if that information was not kept, the recovery and contribution of the billing for the month of March 2020, with the detail of consumption –and therefore the calls made– and the numbers to which they were made, as well as those received.
The magistrates argue in the order that the denied proceedings imply an “undoubted” affectation of the fundamental right recognized in article 18.3 of the Constitution “insofar as it extends not only to the content of the conversation but also to the so-called accessory or external data” .
The Chamber refers to the data that is produced as “a consequence of the act of communication itself, such as those related to the identity of the interlocutors, the list of calls or the very existence of the communication, its moment, duration and destination, both in networks public and private communications, regardless of the means of transmission”.
“Rights that can be limited in the criminal process as long as the legal assumptions enabling interference in the fundamental right established in the Law of Prosecution are complied with,” emphasize the magistrates, who point out that said proceedings do not have fit in those cases.
“There is no minimally solid evidence base in the case, followed by a possible fraud, which allows the use of the rejected methods of inquiry, without the action denied being comparable to that described in the fragment of Circular 1/2013 of the Prosecutor’s Office General of the State cited in the appeal brief”, he collects.
