The Prosecutor's Office opposes the challenge against the Super League judge

The Prosecutor's office has sent a letter to the Provincial Court of Madrid in which he asks that the challenge presented by both UEFA and the Professional Soccer League against the judge in the case of the Super league, considering that the magistrate has no prior relationship or interest in the process.

For the representative of Public ministry, the alleged reasons for trying to remove from the case the head of the Commercial Court number 17 of Madrid, Manuel Ruiz de Lara, "does not reveal the previous relationship of the magistrate with the purpose of the process", nor does it consider proven that the lawsuit provides him "advantage or benefit" or avoid harm to him or his relatives, the Prosecutor's Office reported this Tuesday.

Both UEFA and the Professional Football League argued in their day that there were indications that revealed the “apparent predisposition towards the claims of the plaintiff ”by the challenged magistrate.

They cited, among others, the “haste"(Two days) with which the instructor adopted a series of precautionary measures proposed by the representatives of the Super League without listening to the other parties, and that in the order issued on April 20, the magistrate appeared to prejudge" in advance " the bottom line.

The Prosecutor's Office recalls that the causes to maintain that a judge has a direct or indirect interest in a case, a reason that would give rise to accepting the challenge, are “clearly” contemplated in the law, and that in this case “they are not subsumed in the reason for disqualification invoked ”.

Underlines in your writing that it has not been found no previous relationship of the magistrate for the purpose of the process "or that the lawsuit provides him with an advantage or benefit or avoids a burden or harm for him or his relatives, nor a current interest, that is, concurrent at the time the separation is promoted of the magistrate by means of his challenge ”.

Thus, it specifies that the reasoning presented by the judge to take those precautionary measures are part of the work that "necessarily"It must be carried out during the processing of the case" on the viability, veracity, plausibility of the specific claims to be secured. "

Hence, “in no case are they revealing of a direct or indirect interest of the Judge in the object of the procedure ”, he adds.

The Prosecutor's Office also maintains that the magistrate's decision to suspend the process and later lift said suspension is not “arbitrary” until the preliminary rulings raised before the Court of Justice of the European Union (S THU) were resolved.

Regarding the leaks to the press denounced by the LFP and UEFA, the Public Ministry responds that they are not accredited, and he insists that the magistrate's participation in a round table scheduled with the title "Cases of abuse of dominant position: Super League case" has not been proven.


Source link