The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has dismissed the request for ultra-precautionary measures presented by the Francisco Franco National Foundation, with which it sought to immediately stop the administrative procedure that the Ministry of Culture is promoting to request its extinction before the courts.
This is stated in an order to which Europa Press has had access, in which the Chamber denies the request understanding that there are no sufficient grounds for urgency. The request is part of the appeal filed against a resolution of the Ministry of Culture that promotes its illegalization.
The foundation challenged a resolution of the Undersecretariat of Culture of February 16, 2026, which rejected an appeal previously filed by the entity. In that same file, the Ministry of Culture had rejected the proposal that seven historians and researchers designated by the foundation itself testify as witnesses.
In its brief, the foundation demanded from the court the adoption of an urgent precautionary measure without previously hearing the Administration, that is, a very urgent precautionary measure, in order to immediately annul the questioned administrative resolution.
Nevertheless, the court concludes that no circumstances of special urgency are appreciated that allow agreeing to a measure of that caliber without first obtaining the opinion of the State Attorney, who acts in representation of the Ministry of Culture.
The magistrates underline that this type of exceptional measures can only be adopted when there is an imminent danger that the duration of the lawsuit causes irreparable harm.
In this case, the Chamber considers that such a risk does not exist, among other reasons because the appeal is directed against an interlocutory resolution and the issues raised can be addressed within the ordinary processing of the procedure.
For all this, the court has decided to deny the very urgent precautionary measures requested by the foundation. However, the order does agree to the opening of a separate proceeding for precautionary measures to analyze the claim for suspension through the ordinary channel.
In that new procedure, the State Attorney will have a period of ten days to make allegations before the Chamber adopts a definitive resolution on the eventual suspension of the challenged act.
Appeal against the extinction of the Foundation
The request for measures is inserted into the contentious-administrative appeal filed against the resolution of the Ministry of Culture that promotes the extinction of the entity. Culture initiated in June 2024 the actions to judicially urge the dissolution of the FNFF, relying on the Democratic Memory Law and the Foundations regulations.
The Franco Foundation argues in its challenge the expiration of the administrative procedure, the lack of legal coverage to agree on its extinction, and the violation of its right to defense.
In the appeal, to which this agency has had access, the foundation states that it does not use humiliating or vexatious expressions towards the victims of Francoism, but rather addresses “the problem from a different perspective”.
Likewise, denies making an apology for Francoism that implies glorification of the coup d'état or the dictatorship nor of its leaders, and rejects that there is contempt or incitement to hatred or violence.
The entity requests the suspension of the procedure and warns that irreparable damages would be caused to it, among them its own disappearance, an institutional harm to its reputation and an irreversible modification of the legal situation of the foundation.
The FNFF emphasizes that the administrative file opened against it would entail the loss of its legal personality, the liquidation of its assets, and the definitive impossibility of fulfilling its foundational purposes.
Furthermore, the foundation maintains that its prohibition does not constitute a simple administrative control, but rather amounts in practice to a sanctioning procedure.
The entity highlights that it is the “first time in democracy” that its extinction is “at stake,” and recalls that it is an organization that has been operating for “50 years.”
For this reason, considers that its outlawing “violates article 34 of the Constitution” and infringes fundamental rights linked to freedom of expression and ideological freedom.