The Barcelona Court supports extending the Negreira case so that Rosell and Bartomeu can testify

The Barcelona Court of Appeals has upheld the extension of the investigation into the Negreira case , which the investigating judge ordered last March, arguing that the suspects, including former Barça presidents Sandro Rosell and Josep Maria Bartomeu , have not yet testified.

In a ruling, to which EFE has had access, the 21st Section of the Barcelona Court of Appeals has rejected the appeal filed by former Barça director Albert Soler against the investigating judge's decision to grant a third extension of the investigation for a further six months, which was joined by other defenses, including that of FC Barcelona.

The judge agreed to extend the investigation, which has been in court for more than two years, and to summon former Barça presidents Sandro Rosell and Josep Maria Bartomeu to testify as suspects next September, for the more than eight million euros that the former vice president of the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) José María Enríquez Negreira received from Barça between 2001 and 2018.

In his appeal, Miguel Capuz , Soler 's lawyer, argued that the extension was not properly motivated or justified, since no proceedings had been carried out since last November, and that it had been agreed upon outside the legal deadline: the parties were notified on March 11, ten days after it had expired.

Regarding the first reason, the Court supports the judge's argument for extending the case: the investigation could be delayed because the suspects have not yet been heard, despite the fact that those appearances had already been scheduled, albeit without a specific date.

According to the court, the outcome of these statements—scheduled for next September—may lead to "the need to conduct further investigations, such as tracing the money or obtaining testimony from individuals who could corroborate, for example, the version of certain events that those under investigation may provide."

Regarding the date on which the case was extended, the Court considers that the defense's argument that it was agreed upon out of time is based on "mere speculation or conjecture" and argues that "any doubt is dispelled" by the document from the judicial administration lawyer (LAJ), who confirmed that the order had been issued on February 26, days before the legal deadline for extending the case expired.