18 JUNE 2026 · CONTROL 24 · 25 JUNE SUPPLEMENT · OFFICIAL STATUS UNCONFIRMED
On 18 June 2026 Gil Marer presented a complaint / report concerning acts attributed to Alberto López Villarrubia, then Judge of Commercial Court no. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. This page states the complainant's position, the identified documents, the 25 June supplement, the unknown status of the criminal route, and the strictly delimited relationship with a formal private-prosecution complaint and the other judge-related actions.
The located operative source is a 79-page signed package: presentation sheet, a 31-page principal complaint and ten selected annexes. It was addressed to the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and requested registration, preservation, documentary examination and a decision on competence and procedural route.
The package defines itself as a written complaint / notitia criminis, not a formal private-prosecution complaint or appearance. It requested notification if opening a formal case required a complaint filed through counsel and court representative, while preserving the existing complaint and documents as a registered antecedent.
“24” is the handwritten or internal locator used by the Dean's Office. It is not published as a NIG, preliminary-proceedings number, High Court registration or criminal case. The absence of an official identifier remains a priority gap.
A 10-page supplement was located. It refined the treatment of the credit, improvement threshold, later invocation of res judicata and beneficiary identity. The complainant says he observed its physical joining to the Control 24 package. That account supports an alleged custody route, not proof of judicial remittal or admission.
The complaint identifies the ONA/Clubotel alternative, conditional financing, due diligence, valuation, operating agreement and June–September 2018 communications. The question is not whether the Court was bound to approve it, but what formally arrived, which payoff and security were required, which temporary protection followed and what useful decision responded.
The recognised credit must be separated from figures used for a third party to improve the proposal, interest liquidation, mortgage cap and credit eventually extinguished. Control 24 asks which act, if any, transformed an instrumental threshold into a figure with materially definitive effects.
The 28 November 2018 deed, the €400,000 price and the 24 October 2019 order lead to a finite question: what restitution, cancellation, regularisation, new title or accounting treatment implemented the non-validation before the assets reappeared in the later operation.
The requested inquiry was to reconstruct publicity, time, access, data room, deposit, third-party bidder/ONA, economic comparability, asset condition, May 2021 decisions and 2022 title. The existence of an alternative interested party does not prove it was entitled to the award.
The complaint asks that CAM S.A., CAM S.L. and any other company or label be separated: who was creditor, enforcing party, bidder, adjudicatee, deed party and registered owner in each act. A typographical error or lawful succession may explain differences; deeds, powers, orders and registries must prove the answer.
Each module follows: existing document → incorporation and date → direct judicial knowledge → specific decision → effect → lawful alternative explanation → measure capable of confirming or excluding the hypothesis. An adverse ruling alone does not prove judicial misconduct.
| Date / point | What may be stated | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
| 17 June 2026 | Internal date of the presentation sheet and signed package. | It is not by itself the registry date. |
| 18 June 2026 | Personal presentation at the Dean's Office; handwritten Control 24 locator and routing adaptation. | Complete electronic entry, time, inventory and outgoing route. |
| 25 June 2026 | Presentation of a supplement; the complainant describes physical joining to the 18/24 package. | Electronic date metadata, joinder entry and complete remittal. |
| After 25 June | Requests were made for location, custody, remittal and preservation. | Recipient body, NIG, opening, dismissal or any jurisdictional decision. |
| 4 September 2026 cut-off | Public status remains “presented; official destination and outcome not confirmed”. | Dean's Office/High Court certification and any notice to the complainant. |
The judicial layer is not limited to Control 24. The repository connects, without conflation, prosecution file DIP 2/2026, CGPJ Information File 169/2026 and Administrative Appeal 286/2026, insolvency appeals, administrator removal, culpability proceedings, active-estate supervision and the formal private-prosecution route. Each retains its own object, competence, standard and result.
It does not state that the judge knowingly issued an unjust decision, acted because of an improper relationship, engaged in corruption or should be convicted.
An omission requires a concrete duty, knowledge, ability to act, materiality, qualified injustice and causation. Legal disagreement, error or absence of a document from this corpus is insufficient.
Judicial signature, procedural management, registration, notice, custody and remittal are attributed to the responsible person or unit in each act; they are not transferred automatically to the judge.
DIP 2/2026 and DI 169/2026 have their own results. They do not establish the destination or merits of Control 24, and Control 24 does not itself reopen those files.
The page is maintained through a structured node-and-edge register. Every update must preserve originals, distinguish draft, signed, filed, admitted and decided, and propagate changes to the judge page, DP 1956, DP 1901, sitemaps, search and handover. Affected persons may submit a documented response under the corrections protocol.
Control 24 ≠ NIG or DP · Control 24 ≠ formal private-prosecution complaint · supplement ≠ autonomous complaint · related ≠ consolidated · shared evidence ≠ shared responsibility.