Bartomeu presents an appeal against Judge Aguirre's order

● The former Barça president has provided evidence refuting the "bribery" charge brought against him by the case's instructor and disproving the notion that the former referee was a public officer, the court stated.

The former president of Barça Josep Maria Bartomeu has been the first to take the step before the order of the investigating judge of the 'Negreira Case', Joaquín Aguirre , in which he maintains that the payments of FC Barcelona to the former vice president of the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA ), José María Enríquez Negreira , would constitute an alleged crime of " bribery ."", a type of crime that does not require proving the adulteration of specific parties and that contemplates more serious sentences than the crime of corruption between individuals that was until now attributed to those investigated. The judicial process would be processed by the law of the jury, so it would be A popular court would decide the innocence or guilt of the accused. Bartomeu was accused by Judge Aguirre, along with former president Sandro Rosell and former Barça club executives Albert Soler and Òscar Grau . 

In that order, Judge Aguirre also described Enríquez Negreira as a State official, something that the former Barça president has also resorted to. 

Bartomeu 's defense presented an appeal this Tuesday in the Investigative Court 1 of Barcelona. Among the arguments presented, first of all the legal nature of the Royal Spanish Football Federation and the Technical Committee of Referees is discussed, with the aim of dismantling the theory of the judge, who defended that Enrique Negreira was a public official, something that does not adjust to reality given that "the RFEF is a private entity that is not part of the public sector since it is not part of the scope of application of administrative laws."

Furthermore, and taking into account that in his order Judge Aguirre already considered the facts to be proven, Bartomeu 's lawyer speaks in his appeal "of the evidentiary deficit in the entirety of the proceedings." "The resolution that we are challenging before the Provincial Court has as its main objective to change the orientation of the process in the so-called " Negreira case ", changing the circumstantial classification followed until now - the crime of corruption in sport - to that of the crime of " bribery " . . 

Likewise, the defense of the former Barça president maintains that "the order does not specify the reasons why the Ilmo, Mr. Investigating Magistrate decides this change but it can be assumed that it is due to the null result of the investigation, aimed at demonstrating that some referee "was influenced by Mr. Enríquez , following a plan hatched by himself and FC Barcelona. The manifest lack of evidence seems to have led to the need to modify the classification in order to keep the case alive."

"But neither the complainants or those appearing have been able to provide any evidence, nor have the police investigations been able to find the slightest trace of evidence that would support this initial idea of ​​the existence of a crime of corruption in sport, which has become a mere conjecture lacking proof."  

Dismantling the crime of bribery

On the other hand, in his appeal Bartomeu 's lawyer also tries to dismantle the crime of bribery. "The evidence of the unfeasibility of continuing down the path of corrupting referees and influencing sporting results has led to the decision to seek an alternative classification, that of bribery. 

"It is about finding a criminal classification that could be limited to the strict relationship between FC Barcelona and Messrs. Enríquez , leaving referees and football matches out of the field of attention, and that is where the classification of bribery emerges. , which for the Instructor has an easy fact to verify, because no one has denied it, the payments made by the FCB to the different companies of Messrs. Enríquez ". 

Having analyzed the order, the appeal document concludes that "from the analysis of the Order it can be perceived that this order is only understandable on the basis that the Honorable Investigating Magistrate wrongly confuses aspects of public law and private law, and Proof of this is when he compares the Professional Associations with the RFEF on page 6/21".

Finally, it also highlights factual aspects, which attempt to demonstrate the lack of weight that the former referee had in the RFEF to be able to influence the referees, such as that "Mr. Enríquez did not have an employment contract nor did he receive any salary for part of the Federation" or that "the RFEF itself declares that it did not have executive powers".