Auto del juez sobre el "CASO VOLKSWAGEN" in English translation by Google translation

EL PAIS > caso volkswagen

Auto del juez sobre el "CASO VOLKSWAGEN" in English translation by Google translation

translated from Spanish into English by Google translation

 http://ep00.epimg.net/descargables/2015/10/28/bea1f3373f547ad7951cd936b470613b.pdf

Central Court of Instruction No. 2NATIONAL AUDIENCEMADRIDPreliminary investigation 91/2015-CAUTOIn Madrid on 28 October of two thousand and fifteen.
 FACTUALFIRST.-These actions, were filed on 29
   fromSeptember this year, under asignacióNo complaint by sharingby Attorney María Isabel SalamAlvaro on behalf rump andrepresentation COLLECTIVE WORK UNIONPUBLIC IOSCLEAN HANDS, against Volkswagen Audi SPAIN SA,against herMorys President James D. Muir, against VOLKSWAGEN NAvarra S.A., D.Thomas Ulbrich, against SEAT SA and its President, D. Francisco Javier GarcíaSanz and people along the instruction RESULTINGresponsible for the alleged commission of the Delityou against consumers,provisions of art. 278 et seq of C.P., Scam
  the art. 248 et seq of C.P,Environment against art. 325 et seq of C.P, FalDocumentary fication arts.392 and 395 of the C. P., art fraud. 436 of C.P and contrthe Treasury of Art.305 repeated code.SECOND.-
  In order dated September 30 above, Inc.oatorio ofthese proceedings, it was agreed to confer transfercomplaint to the startProsecutor to report on competition objective of this Court tohear the facts to which it relates and,where appropriate, encourage the practiceof the investigation procedures as it deemed convenientes.THIRD.-Following the complaint indicated in the frontassignor factualfirst of this resolution have been submitted QuereTthe by theProsecutor Ms. Fuencisla Minguez Martinez in representación ofINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEFENSE FRAUD
   FROMAFFECTED BY VOLKSWAGEN AND OTHER ENGINES, by DelitosFraud, false advertising, against the Inland RevenueLica, Falsehood and againstEnvironment against VOLKSWAGEN GROUP, VOLKSWAGENAUDISPAIN SA and SEAT SA, by Ms. Isabel SáSanchez Ridao inD. LEOPOLDO MASCARELL representation d SANCHISthe ABEHIND BY ASSOCIATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSS, byFraud offenses against the environment and Putising against fraudulentVOLKSWAGEN AG, Volkswagen Audi SPAIN SA and SEAT S.A And allthose who at the time of the facts formaban part ofgoverning bodies of those mercantiles.FOURTH.-As of August of this month, he has been entered in este CourtCentral, Ms. complaint. Carmen Flores Lopez representing theASSOCIATION patient advocate for crimetra ResourcesEnvironment and Natural attributed to VO GROUPLKSWAGEN,VOLKSWAGEN AUDI SPAIN SA and D. Martin Winterkorn

FIVE
  The prosecution, in report dated 15 its current,filed for registration at day 20 following, evacuandor the procedure given inresolution of September 30, states the following:"That should assume jurisdiction for conocimiento the basis of the factsthe provisions of Article 65- Le) of the Act Orgánica the judiciary for beingsuspected of a crime of fraud that puedand cause financial damage ina generality of people in the territory of more
 a hearing, without prejudice to thecompetition from other typical elements of conducts related punishable byabove and discuss afterwards.FIRST.-Indeed, the present case was initiated following sendas complaints filed by theUnion representation of Collective RunPublic ios Clean Hands andAnti-Fraud International Association for DefeAffected NSA EnginesVolkswagen and others in which, collecting noticIAS recently published inPress, highlight the alleged trick efectuado by the "Volkswagen Group"certain 4-cylinder diesel engines (2.0TDI).Manipulation seems to be installationa computer programIt detects when the vehicle is in a bank
 testing in order to reducetheir emissions within the parameters required by the regulationsenvironmental.The explanation is that such manipulation para achieve lower consumptionfuel is needed to get as eficiencito energy thereof, to whichIt is to be subjected to high temperatures; it generates,
 however, the emissionhighly pollutants (nitrogen oxide). The retechnical to that arises is that ofachieve motor manufacturing and consuming little hold for twoa great power but atnot turn off gases above the limits
 Legal marked.Supposedly, to solve the problem, the fabricHe introduced a software able toto detect when the vehicle was being testador to check their emissionscontaminants so that at that time hadless operationefficient (with increased fuel consumption), and
 thus less polluting.The Volkswagen group has issued several press dand press in recognizing thefacts and taking immediate steps to
 solution.SECOND..-Regarding the allocation of powers by means dand causation of injuryequity to a generality of people in the WBAito over is Hearinghighlight how the Supreme Court (vide eg
 22/4/99 car) has been drawingthe term "fraud" interpreted andNo material sense, it ie asthose acts described in deceit, fraud orabuse of rights that causeproperty damage. Regarding the "generality of perSonas "also High Courtunderstood (vide cars 07.15.1987, 11.04.1988, 27-9-1990, 25 and 26/03/1996 or 16/04/1999)concurring such circumstances when there is a pluturality important subjectsliabilities that are found scattered in the territory of
 several hearings.While this term is understood not only cuantitativamente but alsofrom a finalistic point of view "according tothe possibility of instruction, valuedeconomic importance and the need dand a centralized jurisdiction.In the present case, the facts above dwritten, if true,determine that the affected vehicles, condinormal conditions ofoperation, they are emitting greenhouse gases
  well above the limitsallowed (could exceed 40 times said Maximo), which disqualify them forcircular, with consequent damage to their titular. Furthermore, emissionsthrown so far could have caused damage yourstanciales to air quality.Given that the use of motors
    Low involvementenvironment is the subject of public subsidy
  its promotion, deceptionit could also have been an unjustified disbursementfied the public purse.

 In short, at this stage of the proceedings, we can conclude that we areSubject to a fraud that a gene causeseralidad people in the fieldover territorial Hearing, scheduled and pened in Articles 248-1, 248-2-b)249 and 282 of the Penal Code which justifies the competencia National Courtfor information, as well as illegal punishmentFraud them grantsArticle 308 of the Criminal Code and crime against meronment of Articles 325 andfollowing the criminal code related to the Antérior.THIRD.-Of interest that are practiced following diligGum:• Recábese the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism:1. all of the information that has been REUne farabout the events, including the Decembertamen AgencyUS Environmental Agency (EPA).2. expert report on that in his case thereeffected in ancorroborating the opinion of the EPA3. reports it has received on the subject of GrVolkswagen and upoentities involved.In the event that the report of the US Environmental Agency notavailable to the Spanish Authoritiess, their contribution to recábesecause through relevant instrumentsinternational cooperation signedbetween Spain and the US.• Recábese the Volkswagen Group:1. all the official statements emitidyou about this matter2. the ratio of affected vehicles sold in EspAna (preferably inExcell format)3. The organization of the Group in Spain with Specification ision functionslinked to the facts and determine the personl responsiblesame.4. identification of the company to which Customor manufacturingsoftware.5. report on the installation progra citedcomputer, with maspecification department responsible for it andn Spain, wherecase

 6.
    report on the measures taken to
   RemedyI injury.Refer to the Ministry of the Agriculture, Alimentation and EnvironmentEnvironment expert opinions that if sand they have madeon vehicles manipulated in order to determine the degree ofharmful emissions.Whenever we face a situation in
   evidence that thepossible criminal responsibility of a person jurídica, practíquense thefollowing actions:1.
    Under the provisions of Article 119 in Dlation with Article118-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, notifíqGroup ueseVolkswagen initiation of this procedure worthl, with requirementfor the designation of a person who Representand, as Advocateand Attorney2.
    In accordance with the provisions of Article 775 of the ActCriminal prosecution, the person convóqueseto designated thehearing referred to in that provision
      to transmit theinformation to which you are entitled.3.
    In order to check whether or not fulfilled the circumtance of defensecriminal liability of legal persons prefor in Article 31bis 2 of the Penal Code, recábese the group Volkswagto report onto control measures and supervision in its cAso, hadadopted prior to the commission of
  the facts forpreventionOnce the full list of vehícu receivedaffected, the recábeseMinistry of Industry, Energy and Tourism reportconcerning the amount of aidgranted public for purchase. "THE LAWFIRST.-At the outset it should be noted that in accordance vreiterating ieneJurisprudence, presented with a complaint, or Denuncia, as appropriate- winsthe court before the whole analysis of sor own jurisdiction, whether theit complies with the formal requirements of Art.277 and related provisions of theL.E.Cr. and whether such a grievance or complaint presents the
 It has been called by thecriminal procedural technique "fundabilidad" degree sufisufficient under Art. 313Rituaria the said Act, since this has
 the last court"We reject in the same way when the complaint lI made that meltsnot constitute a crime ... ".It should be noted the effect as has declared the
  Supreme Court "Theobjective competence legally attributed to the TribUnal should knowa process depending on the nature of the infringementcriminal tion, which is the subject ofprosecution and punishment that may correspond.This competitiondetermines the default for Law Judge
  prosecution of aspecific crimes

 The attribution of competence for instruction
 to central and Courtsfor the prosecution to the Criminal Division of theNational Courtlegally established according to the nature of
   certain typescriminal, through a concrete list oflithos, among whichThey include, in addition to those committed outside the terriNational River, listedin art. 65.1 LOPJ ".Among many others, he noted the judgment of the TS 2-11 To 2007, no877/2007, (rec 10456/2007 Pte.. And Berdugo Gomez
  la Torre, Juan Ramon)than:
 "In effect we are from that invariance dand criminal jurisdiction is afundamental principle of our legal system and theart. 14 LEC., Establishesgenerally the determining basessame.Therefore, the procedural organic system of attributing lto competitioncertain crimes to courts distintwill of those infirst they are called upon to hear them, hasbe interpretedrestrictively because the general principles of
  competition have, asindicates the expression itself, a projection of generality only relents whenLaw expressly states otherwise (auTS cough. 26/12/94 and 01/25/95) "."Consequently the concurrence of the BUDGETI competence of theAudiencia Nacional "....." must appear sufficiently credited tounless the provisional effects of determinationng start of the competition,to alter the criteria established in the LECrim. that is, for these purposes,preferred standard, which means depriving justification to hurrybehaviors that have jurisdictional signyears of inappropriateness in thepowers agreed on a phase shift inicial researchthat, for reasons of immediacy, offers more and morechances of success isin the investigation of the actual facts yeidentifying nresponsible, it does not appear accredited dand undoubted mode, clearor patent exception, would be the common jurisdiction
  what should prevailthat does not mean, says the ATS. 8.2.2003 - in the norVeles initial instructioncircumstances or defining connection points
 competition, yettargeted or appear simply as a matter indiciary or probable."The principle of territoriality proclaimed by theart. 14 LEC. codifiespreferential jurisdiction of the place of the commission of the
 facts "forum delicti conmisi".Connectedness, under Art. 17.2, 3, 5 and 18 dand that Law shoulddeploy their effects, complete andl overview of thejurisdictional grounds of jurisdiction".Thus, the preferred effectiveness of these principles of territoriality andconnectedness, must provide the exceptionalattribution of competitionto the High Court. "As he noted in the S TS 10-6-2008, No. 335/2008 (rec 10643/2007 Pte..:And Berdugo Gomez de la Torre, Juan Ramón):"The principles of territoriality proclaimedArt. 14.2 CPP. Yconnectedness (arts. 17 and 18 CPP.) are gen criteriaeral and basic forattribution of criminal cases and any alteration thereof mustmade restrictively (TS cars. 7/10/89,
 11/10/89, 02/12/94, 22/12/94 and05/24/97). It is noteworthy Auto TS. 18/11/89, el manifesting

 "The powers not exclusive attributionthe effect on severaldifferent territorial spaces, as existencito a unitary competitionIt seems generally established in the art.17.5 CPP. And in thefollowing art. 18 LEC. They are establishing the criteriyou to try crimesrelated. "This principle of connectedness can resolver the problemsto determine the cause organ called conocer, when the effects ofmalfeasance or other criminal acts Analogto significance committed bythe same active subjects have arisen in
  different territories withoutit becomes necessary to go to the attribution of coknowledge of the factsthe Audiencia Nacional, to be achieved in this waythe unification of theinvestigations and prosecutions. "SECOND.- The jurisdiction of the High Court, organjurisdictionalpredetermined by law (STC 199/87 of 26 december and S.T.E.D.12/05/88 humans) is by reason of special characterng criminal matter,being determined in art. 65 of L.O.P.J. Y
 Transitional Provisionthe L.O. 25/05/88 (the latter provision for
   delinquencymembers of terrorist organizations) .- The ExpMemorandum to the RD POSITIONLaw 1/77, of January 4, which was created by the ANational EARING, justifiedthe creation of this court in
  attention to the appearance ofa new and complex crime, with the result ofconditions of modern life.The rules determining the jurisdiction of the AudiNational ence,They establish generally exceptions to the principles general allocationcompetence based on the principles of Territoryality and connectedness,basic and preferred criteria for the allocation of
  competence incriminal (art. 14 no. 2 and arts. 17 and 18 of the ActCriminal) Procedure.The General Meeting of the Chamber of Criminal Tribunel Supremo held onApril 30, 1999, examined the term "generatesity of people "ascriterion for granting jurisdiction to the AudieNational nce. In this plenaryit was agreed that "the requirement of generality persones in the territory of morea hearing is to be interpreted finalisticmind, according to theeducational facilities, assessing the Transcendeconomic gum and theneed for a single jurisdiction over all territorio to avoid delaysundue ".The car of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court
  of 04/22/99, feel thefollowing doctrine: "First of all it must be said that the term "defraudaciotions "used in the Organic Law of the Judiciary should
  be interpreted in amaterial sense (behaviors that cause damage patrimonial throughdeception, fraud or abuse of the criminal law
  typified) and notstrictly formal, referred only to the figincluding by criminal urasthe legislator under this heading. In this regard,should be noted that inthe Penal Code (RCL 1995, 3170 and RCL 1996, 777)
   force have not beencollected under the said section, the same tipI criminal that they were inthe repealed Code that was in effect at the time
  the enactment ofthis Act. The demands of the DEFRAudaciones have orthey can have a serious impact on the economy national, or affectinga generality of people in the territory of more
 a hearing, asIt follows the conjunction used in the Legal Code
 they are merely disjunctive;hence it is sufficient competition in one of
  such budgetsthe jurisdiction of the Court should be recognized
 national, andconsequently of the Central Courts InstgemenT".
 THIRD.-
 Article 312 of the Procedure Act Criminthe states:"When quarrel arises, Judge instruccion, after admitting ifIt ineligible, sent to take such measures
 propusieren therein,except those considered contrary to law, oinnecesarias or harmfulfor the object of the complaint, which deniedin a reasoned decision. " ByMeanwhile, Article 313 LEC authorized-onlythe dismissal of thecomplaint "when the facts on which no cons meltstituyan offense, or whendeemed competent to carry out the teaser obsubject of the same ". FromAccording to the case, and for all STS dand November 12, 2012,accordingly, the order by which resolves sobre the admissibility ofthe complaint must be a judgment por which it is attributed to aand certain nominee, his alleged partitiontion in a fact thatit may constitute a crime or misdemeanor; and MISMor time, this motivationjudgment shall be limited "to a trial
  likelihood onqualification of the criminal acts chargedhis alleged attribution todefendant or accused, at that time without prothey can be CESALout further explanations or proofs, while dicha judgment isprecisely that which opens the judicial investigation ".FOURTH.-
  For all these reasons, in view of the above and haciendo own, thisCourt, the blameless basis of the opinion ofProsecution thatThey are incorporated in this resolution, proceto declareCOMPETITION of this Central Court to hear
 the facts thatrefer the complaints outlined in the backgrounds factual first and thirdof this resolution.FIFTH.- With regard to the exercise of the action popular, we should rememberhowin Article 101 of the Law of Procedure
 Criminal actionIt is criminalpublic, adding later that "all Spaniards mayexercise it under the provisions of the L withey". We find theseprovisions in Articles 270 andfollowing LECrim., so that,that in order to exercise the right ofpopular action indicated is required byfiling a complaint with the requirementsset out in Article 277 andthe provision of bail in the amount that may fixto respond to theresult of the judgment, pursuant to art. 280 CPP. Yonly aftercompliance with these requirements acquiereconditionThe parties, which is what would, in such caso, the validpersonación in the proceedings, with all efectI legal.SIXTH.-With respect to the bond which mustprovide the complainant andwhose statementsufficiency will be conditional status parteThe complainants in this proceeding, is to
  noted that
   thethe particular obligation to provide security
  It is intended to"Respond to the result of judgment." For its partand under Article 20.3the Organic Law of Judicial Power, "can not exigto go bail for hisinadequacy prevent the exercise of the popu actionlar ".The "result of judgment" are constituted byeventualfinancial liabilities that may derivarsand for the complainants.That is, it must be assessed the possible imposition ofcosts if thethe only complainant is finally exercising acriminal ction (SSTS 361/ 1998 of 03.16.1998 and 899/2007, dated 31-10-2007) Iand appreciaterecklessness or bad faith under art. 240.3LECrim. (STS 682/ 2006 of 25.06.2006), and also in this caseThe crime is not theThey affecting called "diffuse interests" rspectrum to which itselfIt precludes the imposition of costs, for example in theitos against averageenvironment (STS 1318/2005, dated 17-11-2005).Moreover, the bond must be provided to
  the circumstancespersonal interest and the complainant (STC 147/1985, of 29-10) ThereforeThere shall be taken into account if the crime is of que affect the communityin general or the specific interests of querellantand, a union ofpublic officials, or whether on the contrary, it is trata scope of a crimesmaller and it is oblivious to the complainant.

 It is to be mention of the doctrine of the Court CoNSTITUTIONAL sitting inJudgments 62/1983, 113/1984 and 147/1985, on exigencia respectheprinciple of "proportionality" in the interpretacióNo procedural requirementdemandedfor the accuser popular in Article 280 LEC.The STC 50/1998, of March 2, summarizes the JURISPRUDENCEconstitutional nce inthematter. So begins by noting that "The right to be party to acriminal process through the exercise of the action polar, expression ofCitizen Participation in the Administration of Justice, has adeeply rooted in our system. It was obsubject of an expressrecognition in the Criminal Procedure Act
  September 141882. In the same vein, the 1978 ConstitutionI wanted to reinforce thisright and it gave naturalized in el Title VI, dedicatedsystematically the judiciary (art. 125). They are
   and severalpronouncements of this Court that since perspective different, gonedeveloping a body of doctrine regarding thes issues that mayarise to relate the arts. 125 C.E. 280L.E .Crim. with art. 24Also one of the Constitution (SSTC 6 2/1 9 8 3, 1 1 3/1 9April 8, 1 4 7/1 9 8 5,2 0 2/1 9 8 7, 3 4/1 9 9 4, 3 2 6/1 9 9 4 and 1 5 4/1 9 9 7). E n l o relativo tolegitimacy, which should be examined as a matter preWe saw, we said in theJudgment 34/1994 that "there is no justificationinterpretationterm citizen restrictive provisions of art. 125 C.E. and inrules governing class action (STC 241/1992). Therefore,not only individuals, but also perslegal ones, areThey are entitled to appear part in the process as criminalPopular accusers".And then, with respect to requirementthe requirement for bailthe Prosecution establishes that the STC 50/1998"The demand forbond for the exercise of criminal action, which
  who it is not imposeddirectly offended by the crime is perseguir (arts. 280 and 281 L.E.Crim.), It is not in itself contrary to the contents andlocal attendance law,it does not prevent itself access to jurisdiction (SSTC62/1983, 113/1984, 147/1985) where the amount, Relative tomeans of those seeking to exercise it, not hinderor impede seriouslyits exercise, as this would lead in practice
 prohibiting helplessnessart. 24 .1 C.E. "It is not for this Court to itstution of organsof the ordinary courts in fixing the cAMOUNT [bail]limiting its function to control arbitrariedad and irrationality of thejudicial decision. However, even with Decemberho scope CourtYou can go to debate whether the amount of the bond fflank prevents access to thejurisdiction "(STC 326/1994). However," if poseería transcendencethe constitutional issue raised by the rationalitytion of the amount of thebail set, because comoyaapuntabaeste T ribunal (S S T C6 2/1 9 8 3, 1 1 3/1 9 8 4 and 1 4 7/1 9 8 5) deser disproportionatedIt is given in relation tothe means of those who seek to bring lawsuitIt would prevent or hinderseriously exercise which could lead in lto practice helplessnesswhich prohibits the art. 24 .1 C.E.. "In short, DebemI insist on ourdoctrine that the specific weight of lnot for bailthis Court, nor that of the circumstanEconomic AIsappellant for the purpose of determining the boundariesin need required. InUltimately, it is a question of fact lCourts will be resolvedaccording to criteria of legality, correspondiéndonos onlydetermining whether the bond is required or not seriously ofsproporcionada pointto determine the fundamental right invoked by merecer ratingarbitrary or manifestly unreasonable".

 In the same vein previously noted, and atFor the scopeof the National Court, can be cited as a
  Auto instance ofSection4th, Criminal Division, of 17 April 2013, that señala"that theArticle 125 of the Constitution and Article 101 dLaw and ProcedureCriminal allow intervention in the process pento the prosecutionpopular, but when it meets the requirements forevils of presentationof complaint (Article 270 of the Act Enjuiciamiento Criminal) and,whennot affect them in the circumstances provided forArticle 281 of the ActCriminal prosecution, pay bail amountthat no reasonablein practice involves the impossibility of BirthdayOOD (Article280 of the Criminal) Procedure. "SEVENTH
   Accordingly, considering the doctrinajurisprudentialpreviously exposed, weighing the interests in
 conflictit is appropriatein this case, attended the objet factsorthe procedure fixing the amount by whichIt must become thedeposit required to purchase the CondicioNo party to the intendedProsecution exerciseshould be, in any case sufficiententity to ensure properexercise of that positionalso taking into account procedural interms of SSTC62/1983 and 50/1998, which is lacking in this casethePartnershipsa legitimate interest and complainantsAdditional staff to defensecommon interest, which may legitimizeprotection under the lawpopularly accuser, but, in order not toviolate the provisions of art.20.3 LOPJ and cases cited above, andnot preventeffectiveness of the right to judicial protection recogdown in Article24.1 EC,deems it appropriate to set the same in thesum of 5,000 euros
  ( five thousandeuro)It will be constituted within ten daysfollowing thenotificationthis resolution, responding in this wayamount referred todemands moderation and facilitation of accesorthe jurisdiction that includesour legislation regulating actionpopular (Auto Supreme CourtFebruary 19, 2013).EIGHT
  Article 113 of the Law of Procedure Criminto provide thatThey may expressly exercised for sharesthe same person orseveral; but whenever there are two or more the persons used by thoseactions arising from a crime or misdemeanor verificaran in a single process and, ifit possible, under the same management and Representation, in the opinion of the Court.NINETH.-
  In relation to the above transcribed provision,it should be notedthe SSTC 30/1981 and 193/1991, after stating that el art. 113 LECr. comes tostrengthen the right to trial without delay indebidas it is also indicated that"... At the same time, setting -such precepto-a necessary joinderimproper when possible, can negatively affectmind the right todefense and assistance of counsel, also Constitutiononalizado in art. 24.2 EC.Therefore, the discretion contained in el art. 113 LECr. can notunderstood as entirely discretionary because there willto bear in mind thetwo constitutional principles to be concIliados: the right todefense and assistance of counsel and the right to a pROCESS without delayYou improper. Hence the legal budget indefinished "if possible"has translated into more than a necessary aupresence of incompatibilitybetween different parties exercising action penal or civil derived from crime -mínimo- requirement; It must be sufficient convergence of interest, and evenof views on the orientation of the actuacing procedural doabsolutely useless repetition of proceedingsinstadas or acts performed bytheir representations and assists Scenestuples.
 Therefore, the essential question is moved inHere the examination anddetermining whether, in fact, fulfilled in the presIf that entity"Convergence of interests and views" on
  the procedural actionparts, which, under the co forecastntenida in art. 113,LECriminal, can impose the caseloadlitigation together -under the same management and legal representation-the front andbecome represented; because if this condition occurs, the sacrificio of their rights of defense,which undoubtedly is limited, I will proportioswim to the purpose for whichIt tends the standard: safeguarding the inde delayceived that is not possible, oreven necessary, to protect otherwise.That convergence of interests and viewpoints
 the procedural action isIt gives in these proceedings, therefore, a part, Being the exercise ofNo class action accusation particularly the convergency interests and purposesand it is clear is that "jus is made or undertakestice ", ie, isan object of generic and non individualiZado or singular; and on the otherhand, an examination of the writings of persontion presented, it followsthey all present a unique object and a legitimación common: "thedefense of persons and entities against aggressionones of public power orparticular, the fight against crimes against humanidad, genocide, torture,war crimes and forced disappearance of pers... ones that have not beendemonstrated how they can be cleaved; without tampocor, finally, thedifferent motivations, interests or purposes persiga each of the peopleor entities that exercise the class action adquierrelevance to these effects,therefore the case in all cases of impeachment polar, no question ofpurposes other than common to them all: thatact the "right to punish" theBeen. Indeed, when the prosecution is exerappointment of several chargespopular, that is, by persons or entities in the
  is not fulfilled thecondition of injured or offended by the crime
  , And therefore notexercising civil actions arising from INFRINGEMENTng criminal may be allowed infirst, greater ease for the existence of convergencia of interestwhich we have been referring; it is obvious thatthe eventual claimactual damage caused by the offense at
 the infringement can lead,greater extent, to a divergence of interests andprocedural ctuacionesbetween the latter and the first that when the action is exercisedonly criminal, which happens in the presente case.Indeed, given the vagueness and generality of
  precept-and therefore notproduce the necessary legislative reform racionished and prevent thepotential abuses in the exercise of the pop actionular- be specificcircumstances of each case that hAbram determine theircorrect interpretation and application by the nationalcourt and not merely thenature of the criminal proceedings brought, and in this
 case, evidencedor, at least, the object is inferred similarityand subject to chargespersonadas popular; that is, the similarity of ActsI denounced peopleagainst whom the prosecution is directed and even
  legal classification of theconduct prosecuted. If to this is added the absence
  Claims byspecific damages, that can not exist in quien does not hold the status ofvictim of the crime, will be forced to conclude quand in this particular case,which it is now interested in convergenceinterests to which refers thedoctrine of the Constitutional Court, issufficiently justified.TEN.-
 Therefore, this "convergence of interests"
 that, asHe said in the SSTC 30/1981 and 193/1991, sits la justification necessaryfor the right of defense and assistance LetrADO partypersonadas be constrained concurs in this supuestor legitimate and, indeed,Repeated application of art. 113 of the Procedural Law
 Criminal .; Since, thesame time, it is obvious bankruptcy of the right to
  not suffer delaysundue cause that would occur as consecuence of the plurality ofappearing parties if they acted separately and
  not under the sameadvocacy and representation, must be concluded, in sum, Which comes admissionthe exercise of popular action entities
 UNION COLLECTIVECLEAN HANDS PUBLIC OFFICIALS ASSOCIATIONINTERNATIONAL FRAUD FOR THE DEFENSE OF AffectedOS BYVOLKSWAGEN ENGINES AND OTHER and ASSOCIATIONBEHIND BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, plus lto bailreference has been made in the legal basisseventh, to thosePopular actions are brought under the same direcing legal andlegal representation.ELEVEN.-
    Art. 24, paragraph 2 of the Constitution Engestablishes theright to the use of evidence pertinentes for defense. HeConstitutional Court recognizes that the admission of
  the evidencein any case it corresponds to the Ordinary Courtss, who mustrule on its relevance (STC 52/1989) ofclarando that the right touse of evidence appropriate not confiFigure rightabsolute and unconditional constitutional to be practiquen all testsproposed by the parties, nor the Judge desapodera
  their right to prosecuterelevance to solving the issue of proof?bas to be provided and tohow to order must be practiced (STC22/1990 of 15 February).On the idea of ​​relevance is superimposed on últimor term, of necessity,understood the first in a material sense, as relation that keep theinvestigative and testing with temObject of the process, judgmentopportunity or fitness, while the need
 It is linked to the extent necessaryor forced, so that the area becomes boundtion of certaintests / measures to prevent it causass helplessness.The proceedings concerned the Ministry Fiscal in its report dated 15current month relate to matters of absolute trascendencia forclarification of the facts and are estimated as pertinentes and necessary topurposes of these proceedings that are theThey are given, inter alia, inarts. 13, 299 and 777 of the Law of Procedure Criminal so as theyprevents in Articles 311, 312 and concordant dand that standard applicableaccess to its practice in the manner and form that indIt ICARA in partof this resolution.TWELVE.-Prevents art.119 of procedural law that when dccordingwith the provisions of Article 118 of the same Act, You have to proceed to theimputation of a legal person, c practiceon this appearanceunder Article 775, the following coupleparticularities: a) The summonswill at the registered office of the legal person,
  requiring the entityproceed to the appointment of a representative and cLawyer and Attorney safor that procedure, with the caveat that,if not, iswill proceed to the appointment of office of these two úpast. The lack ofappointment of the representative shall not preclude the substantion procedurewith the appointed lawyer and solicitor. b) The comparecencia it is practiced withthe specially designated representative of the perslegal one imputedAttorney accompanied it. The absence
  the act of thatpractice determine representative thereof with
 Counsel for the entity.c) The judge shall inform the representative of the person
  legal imputed or,case, the Advocate, the facts that are allocated to a programta. This information isIt provided in writing or by receiving a copia the report or complaintsubmitted. d) The appointment of the Attorney spare partsIt uence the indication ofaddress for notifications, practicándosand with Attorneydesignated all subsequent communication eventsIt is, including thosethat this law assigns a personal nature.
 OPERATIVE PARTCOMPETITION IS DECLARED
   This Central Court for theknowledge of the facts referred to the presentes proceedings.To the effects prevented in the art. 118, 119, 775 and
 related provisions of the L.E.Criminal,Notify the Volkswagen Group is initiatingI penal procedure withrequirement for designation of a Surferand the representative, andBarrister and Solicitor, pointing to the practiceas directed diligentlynextNovember 10 at 10.30 am at the headquarters of
  this Court,be issued the identity card of summons.Recábese the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Youism, the entireinformation that has been able to gather so farabout the events under investigation, with inclusionng the opinion of theUS Environmental Agency (EPA), tellnear opinionsexpert that, where appropriate, have been made in corroboración ofEPA opinion and reports it has received sobGroup re StuffVolkswagen and entities involved.Be interested in the Ministry of Agriculture, Supply Station and the Environmentexpert reports which, if any, have been reaizedon vehicles allegedly manipulated the object to determine theirlevel of harmful emissions.Requiérase the Volkswagen Group in order to transmitthis Court allofficial statements issued on this tosunto, value formatDigital Excel or similar vehicles affectedsold in Spain, theorganization of the group in Spain with specificationLinked functionsthe facts and determination of staff responsabwill the same, theidentification of the company that commissioned the
  making software,report on the installation of that programa computer withspecification department responsible for it andn Spain, reportabout the measures taken, if any, toremedying theI injury and report on measurescontrol and monitoringthat, where appropriate, have arranged to foreseención beforethe commission of the offense.Get rid communication to the Attorney General's Thisto do that, given theevent that specialized / F some ProsecutorISCAL specialistI was / n errands practicing investigación by the facts stated areappropriate in your case, as established in el Article 773 of the Criminal Procedure Act and 5EOMF.The exercise of popular action is conditional onthese proceedings bythe civil servants' union GROUP MANOSCLEAN, International Association FRAUDFOR THEDEFENCE OF AFFECTED BY VOLKSWAGEN AND OTHER ENGINES, and ofBEHIND BY ASSOCIATION OF ENTITIES financíYou were, to theconstitution, by each of them bail in cny of formspermitted by law, the amount of€ 5,000 (five thousand euros)withinten working days counted from the notificationof this order and tothese popular actions are brought under the same famto address legal andlegal representation
 Attorney Ms. Requiérase. Sánchez Ridao so that withinten days provided documentary proofHandicapped D. LeopoldoMascarell Sanchís, since not contributes topurchase dealvehicle to "Motorsol" entity refers to en the exhibition 4th-A-5written complaint.This decision is not final and can be re front of hercourse of reform before itCourt, which must be lodged within three days. The appealsubsidiary appeal may be lodged with andl reform orseparated. In any case it is necessary to fileEarlier reformto file the appeal. The resource apelación is filed withinFive days after notification of the order recurrido or adjudicative theresource reform.Agrees, ordered and signed D. ISMAEL MORENO CHAMARRO, JudgeJudge of the Central Court of Instruction No. 2National audience.DILIGENCIA.- then instructed holds, attest

 002
MADRID
NIG: 28079 February 27, 2015 0,002,611
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS PROC. SHORT 0000091/2015
002
MADRID
NIG: 28079 February 27, 2015 0,002,611
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS PROC. SHORT 0000091/2015