Page 260 Non-compliance File

Every file has a page from which the others hang. On the administrative front of this case, it is page 260.

The act and its context

• 21 October 2013 — inspection visit to the GAUZATU file.
• The non-compliance declaration is then issued: the committed investments are deemed not made and the repayment of the advance is activated.
• The person identified as responsible is the one who by then appears as administrator: Apolozan — designated in an application he did not sign (A.1) and without the required power appearing on record (A.4).

What page 260 does not address

• The Administration's own 2012 audits and payments on the same investments (A.5): the declaration neither mentions them nor explains their reversal.
• The technical valuation of 1,778,000 euros validated in the file (A.10).
• The complaint filed by Apolozan in October 2012 before the SPRI and the Deputy Minister for Industry (A.12), warning of the irregular handling of the file — a year before this declaration.

What was built on top

On the non-compliance declaration rest, in this order: the financial repayment claim, the criminal complaint of April 2014 (A.8), the conviction of 2019 (A.26) and the AEAT's recovery actions with enforcement in Romania (A.41). Each piece presupposes that page 260 tells the truth and that the 2012 pages (A.5, A.10) do not exist.

The chain, in dates

→ 29-10-2012 — Apolozan's complaint before the SPRI and the Deputy Minister (A.12) → 13-2-2013 / 23-7-2013 — SPRI audits and payments (A.5) → 21-10-2013 — inspection visit to the file → 22-10/26-11-2013 — non-compliance declaration: zero investment, repayment of €353,737.08 → 29-4-2014 — the complaint relies on it (A.8)

Is there an ordinary explanation?

Administrations revoke aid frequently, and one inspection may legitimately find what another did not. What the file does not contain is the explanation of that divergence: no report in page 260 confronts the prior audits and payments nor gives reasons why they ceased to be valid. The revocation without that reasoning is the documented anomaly.

The signatory of the inspection, in the original file

The original GAUZATU file (DOC-0138, p. 8) contains the Investment Report of the inspection sent on 31-10-2013 by the Territorial Delegate of Bizkaia, Adolfo González Berruete — a dated and signed inspection act from the same weeks as this zero-investment declaration, which the resolution does not confront.

How to verify it

Read page 260 and note what it says about the 2012 inspections and payments. The absence of that confrontation — on this page and on all subsequent ones — is verifiable by reading.

Contrast with the original file

The original GAUZATU file — including the stretch where the report explaining the move from audited investment to zero should appear, and does not — is in Bilbao Original (DOC-0136, DOC-0137, DOC-0138).