• First session.The Franco family alludes to Fraga to maintain that the Pazo Meirás is not public: it denied them money to rehabilitate it
  • Second session. Investigators accredit the public use of Meirás: Franco "paid nothing" and was paid "as a dependency of El Pardo"
  • Analysis.Pazo de Meirás, Franco's main material legacy, at risk for the family

The civil trial in which the State claims the Franco family the return of the Pazo de Meirás to incorporate it into the public patrimony already faces the final stretch in the First Instance Court number 1 of A Coruña after a third session this Wednesday in which the Professor of Civil Law at the Coruña University José Manuel Busto Lago , as an expert, put on the table an argument that would determine that the property is public. In this building in the town of Sada, different public administrations carried out works annually without requesting authorization from the Dictator, demonstrating, in his opinion, that its true owner was the State.

Already in the two previous sessions, witnesses and experts confirmed that from the acquisition of the Pazo in 1938 to the heirs of Emilia Pardo Bazán until the death of Franco in 1975, it was common for personnel from different administrations to carry out works on the property, especially with a view to disembarkation of the then head of state and his court to occupy it as his official summer residence, and now this expert crowned the argument by ensuring that if the property were Franco's personal and not the state's, it would have been necessary to ask for consent to carry out these actions , some of great depth.

The works were constant between 1938 and 197 and were, according to this expert, "to give it greater utility" and not only, as the family's attorneys try to accredit, for the protection of the person who held the Headquarters of the State in his private residence. Despite the fact that the committee of experts appointed by the Xunta to study Meirás's possible claim sought references on who paid for and ordered these works, it did not locate any documentary evidence that this "essential" permit was requested if he were the owner.

"There was a possession of the residence by the State," concludes this expert, who believes that, otherwise, "there would be no reason to be any of the expenses" associated with that property, which included state civil servants and another contracted by other public administrations and the State assumed all the operating expenses not only during the summer, when Franco moved there with his Council of Ministers, but all year.

"In a personal capacity"

One of the defense strategies of the Franco family is based on arguing that for years Franco "on a personal basis" paid the Real Estate Tax (IBI) of the Pazo and also various civil liability insurance, thus proving that it was a good deprived of your property. "And his lawyers displeased that this committee of experts appointed by the Xunta did not verify this point in his excellent investigation, but this expert played down this tax payment as proof of his ownership.

Busto Lago cited a "very illustrative" judgment of the 1998 Supreme Court on the Castillo de La Muela and maintained that "who pays the IBI is not decisive" to establish ownership, but sees "more relevant" taking into account other data such as the cited works, which "could not be explained if it were not a state-owned asset".

Emilio Grandío Seoane , professor of history at the University of Santiago de Compostela , who was also part of that committee of experts whose report is included in the judicial case initiated by the State, also referred during his statement on Wednesday to that payment of the IBI and acknowledged, to questions from the defense, that in their investigation they did not verify who paid it.

The historian explained that the data they consulted did not include this information, to which one of the lawyers of the family -exerted by the defense Antonio Eduardo Gil Evangelista and Luis Felipe Utrera Molina- replied that they made the check in the Cadastre and It took "just a few seconds".

"Franco was the personification of the State"

The third day of the trial was marked by legal technicalities, such as those carried out by the Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Santiago Luis Míguez Macho , who, on the possible usucaption of the Pazo in 1975, after Franco's death, assured that " a public good can only be usucaped if it has previously been disaffected ".

The session also served to delve into aspects already addressed in the previous two. In the absence of the parties making their final conclusions this Thursday, the experts have confirmed that the Pazo became Franco's summer residence as a result of a popular protest and contributions from public administrations to the so-called Pro Pazo Board to deliver it to the chief of the State, not to Franco in a private capacity, but for his position.

Grandío contextualized that fundraising at a time, 1938, with Galicia already occupied by the so-called national side despite the fact that the Civil War had not yet ended, in which "control of the population is something fundamental in the regime, all the society is under suspicion, everyone is watched, the general climate is between mistrust and fear ", so when the Pro Pazo Board sent the municipalities" door to door "to ask for money for the Pazo, all contributed, some out of fear and others out of sympathy for the Regime, but all in that "so dramatic climate" and "totally military".

In this context, he indicated, like other experts in previous days, that those who did not contribute became "black lists" of "bad patriots." The lawyers for Franco's six grandchildren consider it "irrelevant" that these contributions were voluntary or forced and insist on the impossibility of knowing who contributed for this "fear" and who, like the businessman and Count of Fenosa Pedro Barrié de la Maza , who presided over the Board, they did it as "enthusiast" of the cause.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Galicia
  • Justice
  • Francisco Franco Bahamonde

JusticeInvestigators accredit the public use of Meirás: Franco "paid nothing" and was paid "as a dependency of El Pardo"

Justice The Franco family alludes to Fraga to maintain that the Pazo Meirás is not public: it denied them money to rehabilitate it

CourtsThe Supreme Court confirms the acquittal of Ana Botella for the sale of flats to an investment fund

See links of interest

  • News
  • Translator
  • Programming
  • Calendar
  • Horoscope
  • Classification
  • League calendar
  • Films
  • Themes
  • Crystal Palace - Chelsea
  • Watford - Norwich City
  • Valencia CF - Real Valladolid
  • Mirandés - Elche
  • Celta de Vigo - Atlético de Madrid