THE EUROPEAN ROUTE: SIX DOORS, NO ANSWER ON THE MERITS

The file knocked, one by one, on every door in Europe, and annex A.68 keeps the record of every knock. On 17 September 2024 the European Parliament registered Petition 1070/2024; two days later the complaint to OLAF was filed (case 18907). Then came application T-328/24 before the General Court (18 November 2024) and, faced with silence, the formal request under Article 265 TFEU (1 October 2025).

January 2026 concentrated what no scriptwriter would dare to write: on the 27th, while the file's owner was entering an operating theatre for heart surgery, his representatives were registering with OLAF the request for whistleblower protection (case 24469). Two days later, the request for urgent measures to the ECtHR was answered the very same day with a sentence worth reading slowly: the request «has not been submitted to a judge for decision». It was the fourth application to Strasbourg; all four (22595/20, 32438/22, 15094/24, 3459/26) ended the same way: single-judge inadmissibility, no examination of the merits.

On 10 March 2026 the European Public Prosecutor's Office declined competence and referred the matter to OLAF — the body whose complaint had by then gone eighteen months without resolution. The letters to the President of the ECtHR (9 March) and to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (16 March) close the series, for now: unanswered.

This milestone asserts nothing that is not in the thirteen pieces of the annex. It leaves the reader the only count that matters: six institutional routes, eighteen months, no decision on the merits. The story these fifty milestones document ends, for the time being, here: in a file that no longer denounces only what happened in Bilbao and Alicante, but what is happening with those whose duty it is to examine it.