The Valencian lawyer Curro Nicolau is willing to go to the end in his fight in court for the management of DANA. The lawyer, who overturned the restrictions of Ximo Puig’s regional government during the pandemic, is now acting against the Valencian executive and Moncloa to “make the truth known” about the political management of the catastrophe.
The businessman has also managed to get the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community to open a case for the management of Carlos Mazón, from whom he has asked for the files of the Generalitat’s actions. Likewise, he has taken the “inaction” of Pedro Sánchez and Fernando Grande-Marlaska to the Supreme Court. In the last few hours he has just expanded this complaint and has included Teresa Ribera, his ‘number two’, and the president of the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation.
In an interview with Vozpópuli, he explains that he does not act with a desire for media attention. His objective, he says, is to make citizens see that they have tools to defend their fundamental rights. In the case of DANA, he considers that we can speak of shared responsibility between the central Executive and that of Mazón. He claims to feel especially affected by the catastrophe because, as a Valencian, he went to the flood zone days after October 29 and found “a situation of grotesque calamity.”
Question: After the DANA tragedy, you have filed appeals before the Supreme Court against the President of the Government and before the Valencian TSJ against Carlos Mazón. Why?
Answer: As a citizen I suffered firsthand the consequences of the catastrophe. I am Valencian and, although I do not live in Spain, these days I was in my hometown and I saw how there was no warning of what was coming and, in the hours that followed, I did not see any type of action aimed at mitigating the effects of the catastrophe. .
It causes quite a bit of havoc to see how public administrations do not intervene, which is why I decided to file my appeal with the State Administration and the autonomous community. I think they all had concurrent and solidarity competencies in the prevention and subsequent management of the disaster.
P: However, it has declined to file a complaint, unlike other associations. Do you think that the different governments cannot be held criminally responsible for what happened?
R: In a criminal action You have to prove fraud, bad faith, and it is difficult to understand that they acted with the intention of aggravating the situation and wanting more people to die. Yes, it is true that there can be a negligence in administrative interventionbut it is difficult to see that it was a single person who had to make the decisions. I think there is a concurrent competition and therefore it should be left to several people and they all acted in an uncoordinated manner.
You have to see the documents to be able to have more data and assess whether in criminal proceedings it could make more sense. I, as a specialist in administrative law, consider that there has indeed been an administrative intervention that is susceptible to appeal and an inactivity that can be appealed in this way and that is how I have proceeded.
Q: We are witnessing a political and media war over the responsibilities of DANA management. Do you discern the actions of the Mazón Government from that of the Sánchez Government? Do you think they are equally responsible?
A: I don’t want to value political issues. I believe that they are concurrent competencies and everyone has something to do with the pre- and post-disaster management and, therefore, they are solidarity competencies. To know if one has more than another, you would have to see the administrative records, but I am not going to make any political assessment.
Q: In the case of the lawsuit filed before the Supreme Court, do you also include the Minister of the Interior Fernando Grande-Marlaska. What responsibility do you attribute to him?
R: The Law of the National Civil Protection System attributes the competence to the Minister of the Interior to order the intervention of the Armed Forces, as was the case. He did not do so and considered that he did not have this obligation. As well as ordering the intervention of the State Forces and Corps, which were also not present to a large extent during the hours after the tragedy. With which I believe that this minister is also very responsible in his non-intervention or inactivity.
The President of the Government is obliged to intervene in the event of a national emergency and this does not mean that regional powers are invaded.
Q: In your initial complaint you say that Moncloa should have declared a state of alarm because fundamental rights such as movement were restricted. Don’t you think that the measures that were taken were sufficient?
R: The Government had the obligation to convene an extraordinary Council of Ministers and declare a state of alarm. It was a national emergency and this was determined in the last legislative decree. It is a situation that has occurred in certain autonomous communities, there have been deaths in Castilla-La Mancha as well, which meant that it was extraterritorial in scope beyond the Valencian Community. There have been infrastructures such as railway services that have been interrupted for several weeks. The national scope of the tragedy is evident and I believe that the central government should have acted by coordinating the different concurrent public communities.
P: In his complaint he includes doctrine of the Constitutional Court on state jurisdiction in the event of disasters. Was the President of the Government obliged to act or was he limited to the request for help from the community?
R: The President of the Government is obliged to intervene in the event of a national emergency and this does not mean that regional powers are invaded. I consider that there is an obligation to act, so there is no invasion of administrative powers at all.
What I found in Sedaví was dramatic. It was really a stage worthy of any country outside the European Union. A situation of grotesque calamity
P: In both lawsuits he says that he was able to see in person the ravages of the catastrophe. What was found there?
R: What I found in Sedaví was dramatic. I saw that people were organizing themselves without any means from the State Security Forces and Bodies or the Army. They went with tractors and rudimentary means. People were removing debris from the streets, vehicles… it was the entire apocalypse and there were deaths inside the cars and garages.
They were days where the situation was chaotic. There was no electricity, there was no water, there was no telephone and there was no food, people looted the stores, there was insecurity… it was really a scenario worthy of any country outside the European Union. A situation of grotesque calamity.
Q: You have just expanded your complaint in the Supreme Court. Who does it include?
R: I have expanded the demand to include Teresa Ribera, the Secretary of State for the Environment (Hugo Morán) and the president of the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation (Miguel Polo) because I believe that all of them should have intervened in a different way. There was surely negligence, lack of coordination and inactivity.
Q: In your appeal against Mazón, you reproach him for not requesting help from the central Executive. Does such behavior have legal consequences?
R: The Mazón Government should have requested the earliest intervention of the Armed Forces, but I do not have data because they are in the administrative file. We will have to wait to see if this action was requested or not and that will be seen in the documents requested by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community.
P: What is your opinion that the Minister of the Interior was unaware until October 29 that the mass alert system exists?
R: I am very surprised that the counselor did not know the system. I think they should have known about it and, without a doubt, as they did with this second DANA, it should have been activated beforehand and warned the population of what was to come.
I want the truth to be known, for the law to be exercised and for the rulers to see that there are limits. Not everything goes in politics
Q: The Valencian TSJ has already admitted your appeal and has requested the files from the Generalitat. What do you expect from this procedure?
R: With this action we will be able to see the objective data of how we have acted. This is the first thing, that the truth be known. And then that Justice be done and that all Spaniards and Valencians can claim what they consider about their damages. That people who have done their jobs poorly and who have acted negligently be judged. The truth has to be known so that citizens can see that Justice is done in this country because there is separation of powers.
P: It is not the first time that he has faced the Valencian Government. In the pandemic, he won the court battle against the confinement agreed by Ximo Puig. Do you think the restriction of citizens’ fundamental rights was abused?
R: In relation to the pandemic I filed several appeals. I was not against the health criteria of restrictions or limitations. In fact, I suffered it myself; I almost died. I was in the hospital for 30 days very sick. Therefore, he was not against the measures, but against a misuse of the instruments established by the Constitution.
For me it was not a state of alarm, it was a state of exception and there are many nuances in one sense or another. Many measures were introduced that were not related to the health field and I think it was a blank check for the Executive Branch. This should be controlled by Parliament and, on the contrary, a situation of complete legal uncertainty was created.
The same thing happened with the autonomous communities. There was a fraud of law and this was evident. The Supreme Court demonstrated in my rulings that the delegation of powers was not being carried out correctly and that the decrees that I appealed were null and void. I am very proud of creating a lot of jurisprudence that served the country and in many subsequent resources.
Q: You also appealed the amnesty law before the CJEU. Because?
R: I believe that the separation of powers is very important and I saw how the Executive, once again, exceeded the limits of legal security. Certain aspects of the law are not viable under Community law, especially in relation to embezzlement and acts of terrorism. Therefore, there are aspects of the law that I am not in favor of because they can produce an alteration of the rule of law and the separation of powers by imposing on judges to simply apply it.
Q: There are those who see in these actions more ‘media posturing’ that fights against norms. What leads you to get involved in these battles?
R: I have always said that I have no desire for the media. I don’t make a living from law, I don’t have a law firm, I don’t see any profit. What’s more, I’ve spent a lot of money on all these legal proceedings, so I’m not looking for stardom or fame. There has always been a legal content in my resources and it has been shown that this has served in court. My cases are studied in universities and as a jurist I want the truth to be known, for the law to be exercised, the separation of powers and for the rulers to see how there are limits. Not everything goes in politics.
Beyond what ethics and morality are, let them see that citizens can exercise our right to effective judicial protection, jurisdictional control of the administrative acts of the Government and let them see that The limit is always the law. I have wanted people to know the truth, to be able to see themselves represented in Justice and for their fundamental rights to be defended.
Source: www.vozpopuli.com
