Denial of Legal Aid in Bilbao concerning the SPRI

Access to justice has a material prerequisite: being able to afford the defence. This document fixes how that prerequisite was resolved on the front of the complaints against the programme's bodies.

The act

Denial of the benefit of legal aid — and with it of a court-appointed lawyer — for the defence of Apolozan's claims linked to his complaints against the SPRI and the Basque Government (A.12) over the management of the subsidies co-financed with ERDF funds.

The applicant's economic situation, according to other files

On the dates of the application, on record are: the provincial debt of 149,040 euros claimed in Bilbao (A.7), the AEAT enforcement file with seizures under way (A.40, A.41) and the unaddressed VAT refund claim (A.46). The insolvency the denial does not recognise is the same one the enforcing administrations presumed in order to seize.

The effect on the complaints

Without legal representation, the claims against the programme's managing bodies were left without procedural development. The administrative version of the file (A.6) reached the criminal case without technical contradiction from a party.

The documented parallel

The same denial, with the same effect, repeats in Alicante in 2017 for the actions against the AEAT's conduct (A.45). Two fronts, two denials, a pattern verifiable by dates and objects.

How to verify it

Compare the date of this denial with the seizure files of the same period (A.40, A.41). The coexistence of both criteria — seizable and insufficiently poor — is on record in writing.