Tuesday, June 17, 2025, 11:02 AM
The provincial court of Barcelona rejected the appeal against the order of the Court of Instruction Number 1 of Barcelona on Monday that, according to IUSport, the extension of the ‘Negreira case’ corresponded.
This was asked by the former director of Barcelona and former president of the Superior Sports Council (CSD) Albert Soler; Barcelona himself and his former presidents Josep Maria Bartomeu and Sandro Rosell; the former Barca director òscar Grau; and the former Catalan ex -Arter Xavier Estrada Fernández.
On 26 February the head of the Court of Instruction Number 1 of Barcelona, Alejandra Gil, agreed to the extension of the instruction of the case for six months, counting from 1 March 2025 and the declaration of the investigated.
The main cause examines the alleged payments of Barcelona to the former Vice President of the Technical Referees Committee (CTA), José María Enriquez Negreira. In addition to alleged bribery, possible crimes of unfair administration and documentary forgery are also investigated.
According to the provincial court of Barcelona, the initial appeal to the car is ‘concise in its foundation, but clearly explains the reason why the instruction of the present case should be expanded’. “The instruction could be postponed because, and despite the fact that it has been agreed, the statements of the investigated have not been applied, except for one in the Negreira -Wiens result can lead to the need to practice new procedures, such as following money or testimony of people who can confirm, for example, the version that have not indicated the facts investigated.”
“Consequently, it is to set a new maximum period before the end of this instruction, for another six months, from the end of the current term,” he said. “It is filled in, says the hearing, with the essential requirement required by Article 324.1 Lecrim of the need for the instructor to present the specific procedure needed to practice and their relevance for the investigation,” he said.
“It is justified the need to exercise the statements of the investigated that, despite his agreed, not to have been practiced, with the resulting impossibility of concluding the instruction and relevance of the same for the investigation,” he concluded.
