Application for Interim Measures before the Alicante Court

Apolozan case · ERDF fraud (Bilbao / Alicante / EU)

Application for Interim Measures before the Alicante Court

Six months after the first interim measure (A.53), the situation forced a second. Its course documents the state of the front.

The brief

  • Filed on 11 August 2021 by the claimant of proceedings 444/2020 (A.52).
  • It reiterates the urgency: the subsistence of the family unit during the pendency of the dispute.
  • It invokes, among other points, the VAT retained since 2002 without refund (A.46) — liquidity owed by the same enforcing Administration.

What is on record of the procedure

  • No resolution: neither granting, nor denying, nor of non-admission.
  • The forwarding of the matter from one court to another — the same mechanism of circulation without examination documented on the criminal front (A.43).
  • The continued pendency of the main procedure while the interim harm was consummated (A.55).

The measure of the silence

An interim measure without a response is not a denied interim measure: it is a procedure that does not function even to say no. Article 130 of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction Act presupposes a reasoned decision one way or the other; the file contains none.

How to verify it

Locate in the 444/2020 the resolution of this application. Its absence — the second consecutive one — is the annex.

The factTwo consecutive applications for interim measures, in a live procedure, with documented family urgency — and not a single resolution on record, either way.
The questionWhat interim protection is the one that does not respond even to deny — twice — while the claimant's family loses its home?

Documentary evidence · A.54 · 11 August 2021 · Investigation and coercion
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.