National Court finds no manipulation of electricity price and acquits Iberdrola and four executives

Prosecution and other charges They demanded a prison sentence of 3 years and 193 million euros. Although the decision announced on Wednesday indicates that it was intended to give a comprehensive interpretation of criminal manipulation, which should not be applied to this case, as there was no action contrary to the principle of legality governing criminal law.

In response to Iberdrola’s claim that it “saved the water”, the judge considered it “fully proven” that Iberdrola had put all its hydroelectric power on the market in 2013, the market had already been liberalized and the price was free. to cause electricity market prices to skyrocket to an excessive and unfair level in his opinion. The judge concludes: “Frankly, it is very difficult to appreciate the existence of a crime. “to accomplish something that is not prohibited and therefore legally permissible”, but this position can be challenged before the Appellate Division of the National Court.

For now, both the company and the four executives who sat in the dock since last October until the sentencing hearing on November 30 have been acquitted: Ángel Jesús Chiarri, Gregorio Relaño, José Luis Rapun and Javier Paradinas. They all faced an accusation from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which positioned them as “that”. responsible for economic damage of approximately 107 million eurosOf this, 96.7% was paid by consumers and the rest by electricity marketers.

Some of these companies are Facua and insurance companies They also made the claim. EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA of the Prensa Ibérica group, on behalf of the consumer organisation, was told that its lawyer was currently reviewing the decision and will decide whether to object or not. Share your findings with your legal team.

The charges alleged that Iberdrola increased the price of its offers to the electricity market The unfair production of many hydroelectric power plants is not accepted and leads to the production of gas power plants with higher prices, thus driving down the price of the entire electricity market.

In his decision, the judge analyzes the expert reports presented at the plenary session by experts of the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) and concludes: Other energy companies also offered hydroelectric energy at over 80 Euros per megawatt hour (MWh) around this time. but these other companies are not considered to have committed a crime if the only objective data are the same and they bid above the level of 80 euros per MWh.

CNMC’s “futuristic possibility”

The National Court’s decision held that the CNMC’s accusations were based on “mere futuristic probability studies for which the criteria of plausibility were never explained” and also “unclear procedure” and not used in other situations. Therefore, analysis is considered to be “a system”. temporary With all this, the central criminal judge stated that “the objective and subjective element of the criminal norm could not be proven with the reliability required by criminal law, Only subjective estimates of CNMC experts”.

“It cannot be ignored that hydroelectric energy was a free market at the time of the events subject to prosecution,” he adds, as said by three members of the CNMC who intervened in the administrative sanctions file initiated against Iberdrola Generación. Prosecutor’s Office) “At the time of the events, hydroelectric energy prices were free for all production companies with these rights. the only limitation is not reaching 180 euros per megawatt hour“It is a limitation that disappears after a while in line with the demands of the European Community.”

Judge gives full confidence to the statements of former Industry Minister José Manuel Soria Also present during the hearing were former Secretary of State Alberto Nadal and electric company employees who confirmed the legality of the behavior. Therefore, it follows that the performance: This was not retaliation for the $3.6 billion withdrawn from the General State Budget to cover part of the electricity deficit. WITHOn the contrary, he points out that the statements in the Soria and Nadal case make it clear that: There were tensions for that fact but they were generally no bigger than the others they maintained in energy companies.