The judge of Catarroja who instructs the case regarding the management of the dana has decided not to admit a series of proceedings requested by a particular prosecution in relation to the Ayuntamiento of Aldaia. It does so after the testimony of the mayor, Guillermo Luján, and by stressing that no deaths occurred due to an order to remove vehicles from the streets and because that request "overlooks that the functions attributed to the Town Councils must also be linked to the different phases of the emergency in accordance with the Special Plan in the event of flooding risk".
As stated in an order dated November 9, which Europa Press has had access to, in which the magistrate rejects the request of the particular prosecution. It considers that this party does not have standing to promote such proceedings, since these are pieces of evidence that do not have a direct connection with the deaths for which it has joined the procedure, which occurred in Catarroja and Paiporta.
In Aldaia, six people died, four of them in their homes and two others in garages. "None died as a consequence of an order to remove vehicles from the streets. Confinement is not the measure that should be applied in risk areas (basements and garages), but the opposite measure. Four of the deaths in the town of Aldaia occurred precisely in their own homes," the judge explains in her ruling.
The magistrate links these facts with the moment when the deaths occurred and with the different levels, 0, 1, and 2, provided for the management of the emergency. In her testimonial statement, the mayor explained that the deadly overflow took place from 8:00 p.m., "when the water jumped over the dyke known as the "cunetó", and that from that moment, the water would take an average of half an hour to reach the built-up area".
According to what is on file in the case, around 7:00 p.m. level 2 was declared for the entire province of Valencia, "which entails an insufficiency of local resources, on their own, to deal with the emergency".
Proceedings requested regarding the action in Aldaia
The particular prosecution requested, among other proceedings, the Book of New Notes and Register of Communications of the Local Police of Aldaia of October 29, 2024, detailing the orders issued by the Mayor's Office in relation to the use of megaphony, road closures, removal or transfer of vehicles, and emergency assistance interventions.
Management of alerts and lack of standing
It was also necessary for an official letter to be sent to the office of the city council in order to identify “formally” the municipal technician of Civil Protection or the person in charge of the Emergency Area who took part in the preparation of the Municipal Action Plan in response to the Flood Risk (PAM IN) and in the management of the alerts on 29O, and to summon them to testify.
On this point, the judge concludes that the private prosecution lacks standing to bring criminal actions for alleged serious negligence in Aldaia attributed to the so-called “municipal authority,” and recalls that it does not act as a popular prosecution either. Therefore, it cannot request evidentiary steps focused on the locality, “disconnected from the deaths it intends to investigate, and with regard to which it is registered in the exercise of the criminal action”.
To the lack of active standing, the order adds, according to the ruling, that the generic reference to the “municipal authority” cannot serve as a basis for an imputation. “The Mayor must be personally identified, with an explicit designation if the court should deem it necessary (not cited with his name, nor his position), the members of the corporation, or whoever it considers appropriate, as responsible for the alleged criminal act,” the magistrate specifies.
The role of the PAM IN and pending documentation
The resolution also emphasizes that the absence of approval of the PAM IN, the first argument of the prosecution to support a claim of serious negligence, “cannot constitute a basis in the imputation of the deaths”. In the judge’s view, “precise alerts and communications were needed, addressed to the different municipalities, and effective control of the sources of risk, given that the risk of flooding, due to its development and severity, required that surveillance of the ravines be extended in an extensive and permanent manner”.
The instructing judge also recalls that it is still pending for the mayor to submit various documents requested by the parties: their intervention in an extraordinary plenary session of the City Hall about what happened on 29O, reports from the Local Police about the incidents recorded, notices disseminated to the population through social networks by the city council, and internal whatsapp messages from the City Hall related to the management of the emergency.