The Fourth Section of the Provincial Court of Valencia has rejected that the company that manufactured the coating of the facade of the building burned in the Valencian neighborhood of Campanar be investigated, in which 10 people perished in February last year.
The ventilated building facade was covered with aluminum plates with a core of a type of polyethylene. The flames spread at great speed on the facade. In the reconstruction of the building, the owners have opted for a ceramic coating.
The Chamber has dismissed the appeal resources presented by several private accusations and has rejected that the legal representative of the company be investigated for considering that the construction was adjusted to the current legality.
Likewise, it has denied other requests for proof of the parties, such as the testimony of the totality of the firefighters who participated at first in the extinction of the fire.
The Court has adopted these decisions in two appeal records issued a few days ago and that confirm in turn dictated by the head of the Court of Instruction number 9 of Valencia, responsible for the investigation.
In the opinion of the magistrates, the legality of the construction has been determined by the testimony provided during the instruction by the technical architect author of the construction project, the technical architect who supervised the execution of the work and the municipal architect who prepared the report prior to the concession of the construction and occupation license.
“It can hardly be pretended that there is a criminal responsibility for the alleged concealment of a risk, if it was legally admitted, as the use of said material for the cladding of the facade is authorized,” collects the order for appeal.
In this resolution, the Fourth section also ratifies the refusal of the instructor to practice other proceedings related to the material installed on the building’s facade for understanding that they are unnecessary.
Among the proceedings that were requested and that have not been admitted was the request for information to the Italian Prosecutor’s Office on the investigation opened by the Torreo Dei Moro fire of Milan, covered with materials from the same Burgos company to which the hearing has decided not to investigate.
The Chamber considers that there is no record that the criminal investigation opened in Italy to this company is related to the present case, among other things, because there is no firm sentence but “a mere investigation” and also because the panels used in Italy were certified by specialists from that country, with different evidence – and different regulations – those made in Spain.
The second of the cars dictated by the same court denies, among other proceedings, that they testify in the case the totality of the firefighters who participated in the first intervention in the fire, for understanding it unnecessary and “redundant”.
The room recalls that three firefighters who arrived at the building in the first vehicles have already been testified during the instruction and worked directly on the extinction of fire, specifically a firefighter, a corporal and a sergeant. In the opinion of the audience, “the circumstances in which the intervention” of the firefighters were already clarified.
