A judge in Alicante ruled on a temporary dismissal related to a file about cases brought against individuals connected to an Alicante based company. This company had faced police action last year over alleged dual-use goods smuggling. Those individuals who are now acquitted were previously detained in Alicante during the middle of the previous year for exporting to the country technology capable of serving military purposes. The items in question included components that could be used in missile guidance systems, according to reports from the Police Headquarters.
Alicante’s Civil Court of First Instance No. Five granted police investigators access to three industrial warehouses. These facilities were linked to the brokerage and export of autonomous navigation technologies used in drones, including autopilot systems associated with the company’s products. The action by the court allowed a formal entry and inspection as part of the broader investigation into the matter, while prosecutors prepared a separate request for legal action. The investigation relied on technical reports from Alicante that supported the legality of the commercial operations carried out by the company during the period under review.
The court noted that a prior regulation change, communicated at the end of 2015, had implications for export controls under the BRSA framework. A representative from the European Union reportedly informed the Alicante trader that there would no longer be a need to obtain certain export licenses from the General Sub-Directorate for International Trade in Defense Materials and Dual Use, provided the items met the updated definitions of what could be marketed. The technical assessment submitted to the court concluded that the autopilot exported by the Alicante company did not require an export license under the revised rules. It was explained that after the regulation change, several related items became commercialized as accessories, and these accessories were not functional on their own as defined by the defense material regulations, and thus were not subject to those specific controls.
In addition, a report from the Inter-ministerial Regulatory Board for Foreign Trade and Dual Use in Defense Material was submitted to the court. This document acknowledged the regulatory changes and indicated that the court’s previous conclusion about the alleged smuggling crime did not stand, supporting a dismissal of the case as appropriate given the updated framework. The court also observed the police stance that the products in question should be classified as dual-use materials, which would typically require a license issued by the Department of Defense. Yet the regulator’s position clarified that those items did not fall under that category in the circumstances described, and therefore no export permission was necessary in this case.