Application before the European Court of Human Rights

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

Application before the European Court of Human Rights

Between the first application to Strasbourg (A.32) and this one lie two years and three documents that change its nature.

The application

  • Filed on 15 May 2024, within the time limit of Article 35 ECHR from the definitive internal resolution — the non-admission of the review of 1 February 2024 (A.38).
  • It maintains the 2022 invocations: Articles 6, 6.2 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
  • It adds the complete 2023-2024 file.

What this application contains and the 2022 one could not contain

  • The forensic expert report of 19 July 2023 (A.33): the repeated alteration of the trial's record, concluded by a registered expert.
  • The full course of the review (A.36, A.37, A.38): the avenue of Article 954 of the Criminal Procedure Act closed with the expert report on the table.
  • The filings of the prosecutorial avenues (A.34, A.35): the Anti-Corruption office and the Chief Prosecutor of Bizkaia, with no step taken.

From Strasbourg to Strasbourg, in dates

24-6-2022 — first application to the ECtHR (A.32): not admitted with no material reasoning → 19-7-2023 — the forensic expert report changes the nature of the case (A.33) → 10-11-2023 — the internal circuit files the complaint with the expert report on the table (A.35) → 1-2-2024 — the Supreme Court closes the review (A.38) → 15-5-2024 — this application: no longer only the trial, but the State's response to the evidence of its alteration

The displacement of the object

The 2022 application denounced a trial; this one documents, in addition, the State's response when the alteration of that trial was expertly attested to it. Article 13 of the Convention — the right to an effective remedy — has here its textbook situation: it is no longer the original infringement, but the demonstrated non-existence of an internal remedy against it.

How to verify it

Compare the documentary index of this application with that of A.32: the difference is the 2023-2024 annexes. Each of them appears in this chronology, dated and verifiable.

The factThe second application takes to Strasbourg what no internal body was willing to examine: the expert report on the trial's alteration and the seven documented refusals to review it.
The questionWill the ECtHR examine what its own 2022 filter never got to see — now with the forensic evidence and total exhaustion attested?

Documentary evidence · A.39 · 15 May 2024 · European and international projection
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.