The holder of the Court of First Instance number 70 of Madrid has decreed that 564 assets of the Pazo de Meirás they remain in this place, in deposit under the custody of the State, until the lawsuit over their ownership is put to an end.
The magistrate has accepted the precautionary measure requested by the State Attorney, on behalf of and on behalf of the General State Administration and the National Heritage Administration Council, after the hearing held on November 25 to decide on this request, pending that it be resolved whose property it is: the State or the Franco family.
In that view, the Xunta de Galicia and the City Council of Sada -the municipality in A Coruña where the pazo is located- adhered to the precautionary claim of the State Attorney’s Office, while the Franco family opposed the claim.
Now, the judge explains that, having analyzed the arguments of the parties, “the credibility and real consistency of the well-founded fear expressed by the State Attorney in relation to the loss of their right to effective guardianship if the requested measure is not agreed”, with the consequent danger that the future judgment on the property will be without effect.
underline the “special characteristics” of the goodswhich “can express the feeling of a state community, and also regional and local, in accordance with the cultural postulates implicit in our Constitution of 1978”.
“It is not about common or ordinary movable property but about pieces of extraordinary value that, even beyond the quantitative estimate in legal transactions, They can be assets of the Historical Heritage and Documentary Heritage“, Add.
The judge affirms that not only are the requirements for this purpose met, but also that “there are no other less burdensome measures that have the same effectiveness as the one now sought.”
The State Attorney General filed a new legal claim last September in which it claims another 564 assets of the Pazo de Meirás, which is being processed in the courts of Madrid because the norm establishes that, in a matter of movable assets, the corresponding judicial bodies are competent to the domicile of the defendant, in this case the Franco family.
The State claims ownership of 564 assets that were not included in the original claim, in which it obtained ownership of the pazo itself and, in execution of the judgment, of nearly fifty assets, which the court considered attached to the property.
The lawsuit included the precautionary measure of that the goods remain within the pazo and in the deposit of the Administration until the court decides on the merits.
The magistrate in which the matter fell denied that, as requested by the State Attorney’s Office, an “unheard of part” precautionary measure be issued, that is, without listening to the Franco family, and set a public hearing for October to decide on it, which was eventually discontinued and is now being held.
