TC amparó to Albertos for lack of legal value of complaint against him

The Constitutional Court has not changed the doctrine of the Supreme Court on prescription to set aside the judgement condemning 'Albertos', according to legal sources consulted by Efe, but has been limited to a finding that the complaint against them had no legal value.

These sources have explained, after studying the judgement of the Constitutional about 'case Urbanor', that the complaint against Alberto Cortina and Alberto Alcocer was filed on January 6, 1993-just one day before the expiration of the period of limitation -

Unsigned and without the required accompanying special power.

Although the judge had been filed on that date 'the sole purpose registers and control', according to the ruling of the Constitutional also agreed that the minority shareholders of Urbanor that had brought ratify it, and it was not until two months later when formally these defects are corrected.

By then, however, had already passed the period of limitation of five years prescribed for the offence of fraud.

In its judgement notified last day 20, the Constitution refers to this as' the key element of uniqueness of the case "and said that the same Supreme Court refused to document lodged on January 6, 1993 'legal value of complaint' even complaint.

Despite this, the Supreme felt that her presentation had interrupted the limitation period of the crime and sentenced to Cortina and Alcocer to three years and four months' imprisonment for fraud and deception in commercial paper in the sale of the company Urbanor.

With its resolution, according to sources consulted, the Constitution has not challenged the doctrine on prescription, which states that the alleged legal interruption of the same takes place at the time in which the procedure is directed against the culprit.

What has made the TC, added, it is limited to analyze whether a written document submitted to the duty court without fulfilling the legal requirements established for the lawsuits can be considered or not as an act of initiation of a judicial proceeding.

The conclusion is that a notice of these characteristics may not be the origin of a sentence when it is concerned the possible infringement of the fundamental rights of effective judicial protection and personal freedom.

This concludes the sources, does not mean the emergence of a new doctrine, but the application to the specific case of the already established.