THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS

LEGAL CERTAINTY AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN. THE CASE INTERVIDA

Abstract

In Spain, there have not been usual either public men’s memoirs nor publications written by lawyers regarding the case law. There seems to be a certain modesty or maybe an excess in the sense of the ridiculous of their authors. Case law has been limited to comments on sentences written by academics who have not suffered the direction of a matter.

This article gives an account of a specific case, the so-called Intervida, and particularly, of the precautionary measure taken in that case, which was qualified as judicial intervention, despite it was really a judicial administration, as this meant the suspension of the managers of this NGO.

The case began with a tax investigation, which began with an anonymous report. This investigation lasted four years (2003-2007). Afterwards, there were some preliminary proceedings, that end with a stay judicial decree (2007-2012).

However, while the preliminary proceedings delay without any real content, first, the intervention measure (=administration) was issued without any legal basis. Second, after five years of useless instruction, a dismissal order was issued although the injunction was maintained. There was neither crimes nor criminals, but even today the legitimate managers of the private Foundation Intervida have not been reinstated in their positions. The foreign member of the board of Intervida, who was not impeached even though he was dismissed, wonders about the legal certainty offered by the Spanish courts when he glances that he has not been reinstated in his position yet.