The program, broadcast on Cuatro, was of “public and historic curiosity” in line with the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court The dictator’s grandchildren sued Mediaset for “violation of the fitting to picture, honor and privateness”, however the Supreme Court rejects it The report, wherein the grandchildren appeared, centered on 4 properties: the Meirás pazo, the Cornide home in A Coruña, the Canto del Pico palace in Torrelodones and the Valdefuentes searching property
In July 2018, a 12 months earlier than the exhumation of Franco del Valle de los Caídos, and in full controversy over it, this system En el punto de Mira, from Cuatro, broadcast a report on the dictator’s heritage. It was titled “La heredad de los Franco”, and it featured the dictator’s grandchildren and detailed data on inherited properties, which had been owned by Francisco Franco.
Franco’s grandchildren felt very offended by a company chart with their {photograph} and the issuance of photos of all of them in several acts. They understood that the whole one-hour report was aimed toward “his disqualification of him” and that “he hid the truth” and the data was manipulated by speaking about properties acquired outdoors the margins of legality.
“An inventory of Francisco Franco’s property is introduced, which make up his inheritance, with statements and conclusions concerning the truth that his acquisition was carried out by way of appropriations, extortion, theft, deceit and abuse of energy, with none financial value,” stated the descendants of the dictator in his lawsuit in opposition to Mediaset.
But the response of the courts has been clear: “The tv program refers to a matter of common curiosity, of a historic nature, associated to the patrimony of Francisco Franco, as head of the Spanish state, which focuses on 4 properties, particularly within the Meirás pazo, within the Sada city corridor (A Coruña), the Cornide home on this metropolis, the Canto del Pico de Torrelodones palace (Madrid), in addition to the Valdefuentes searching property, in Arroyo de Molinos, additionally on this final province”, stated the Provincial Court of Madrid, which rejected the demand because the Supreme Court does now.
The magistrates make a steadiness between the rights of data and freedom of expression and people of picture, privateness and honor that Franco’s grandchildren demand. And the conclusions are that the report revered all these rights.
The sentence states that “that is verified data, with proof of the sources from which it was obtained”, which had been consultants, family of these affected by the expropriations or investigative journalists.
They admit that there may have been an error, however that it was “merely circumstantial” and that “it doesn’t have an effect on the requirement of the veracity of the data.” “There are not any indications of unhealthy religion -the sentence continues- they aren’t mere rumours, for the reason that info have a verified actual foundation”
And not solely that, they level out that insults, humiliation or disqualifications weren’t used and that “alleged irregularities” had been all the time mentioned.
In addition, they remind them that there was no reference to their non-public life, that this was revered, however to points associated to the inherited heritage and its administration.
To conclude, it provides that each one the contributors within the growth of this system “are protected by the constitutional freedom to disseminate data and by the liberty to precise their concepts, opinions and ideas, each enshrined within the Constitution.” The Francos, due to this fact, lose the lawsuit filed.