NOTICE → DECISION → COMPLETE REPLY → HIERARCHICAL APPEAL
On 20 August 2026, Carlos Víctor Rubio Faure, Government Secretary of the Canary Islands High Court, notified the closure of the governmental file opened after the 15 August LAJ / Office-of-the-Court submission. The decision expressly allows a one-month hierarchical administrative appeal. This record publishes not only the incoming notice: it includes the complete same-day reply, the direct video source, the PwC, Grant Thornton and RSM/San Telmo updates, and the two visual exhibits sent with the email.
First-level archive · appeal filed · forwarding and decision pending
Verified identity, capacity and office
Carlos Víctor Rubio Faure is the named sender of the institutional email, signed the decision and identified himself as Government Secretary of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands. BOE Order PJC/203/2024 confirms his appointment to that post; official Judiciary sources again identify him in the office in 2026.
The transmission came from a functional Government Secretariat mailbox hosted in the Canary justice infrastructure. The technical mailbox does not replace human attribution: Rubio Faure and the Government Secretariat are the signatory and issuing authority. Regional email and ATLANTE infrastructure likewise do not turn the decision into an act of the Canary executive administration.
| Person / body | Verified relationship to Government File 38/2026 | Necessary limit |
|---|---|---|
| Carlos Víctor Rubio Faure | LAJ and Government Secretary; author and signatory of the decision; named sender of the notice and later correction. | His signature establishes this act and capacity; it does not prove personal knowledge of the entire insolvency file or unlawful intent. |
| Government Secretariat of the Canary Islands High Court | Body that received the application, opened and archived the governmental file and, where applicable, must channel the appeal. | It is not a judicial chamber or a second judicial instance on the merits of the Magistrate's rulings. |
| LAJ corps / Las Palmas Provincial Coordination Secretariat | LAJ and court-office governance chain. LOPJ Articles 463–467 place the Government Secretary above Provincial Coordinators and LAJs within his territory. | Organisational hierarchy does not permit case-specific directions where an LAJ acts as judicial certifier or directs proceedings. |
| Secretary-General of the Administration of Justice | Hierarchical superior to whom the appeal filed on 20 August 2026 is directed. | Filing and destination are not admission, actual forwarding, review or allowance. |
| CGPJ / High Court / Magistrate | Separate judicial-governance and judicial-discipline plane. The decision says only that the DI 169/2026 communication was for information and had not then been recorded as received. | The LAJ/Office route must not be merged with review of judicial merits, and institutional receipt must not be converted into personal knowledge. |
Signed decision
No preliminary disciplinary inquiry is opened.
No inspection of LAJ/Office services is ordered.
Document requests 4–8 are directed to the insolvency proceeding.
Considered outside this governmental file's competence.
| Establishes | Does not establish |
|---|---|
| Receipt, opening, archive, the Secretary's reasoning, the ATLANTE statement, the Article 234 route, the reported absence of a CGPJ receipt and the existence of an appeal route. | Completeness or regularity of the 2018 and 2021–22 chains; accuracy of every testimony or finality statement; effective notification; lawful external use; absence of LAJ error, patrimonial harm or criminal relevance. |
CGPJ DI 169/2026. The decision says the communication was for information only and did not appear as received by the Government Secretariat. Controlled formulation: communication ordered → TSJ reports no recorded receipt → dispatch, channel, recipient, receipt and internal registration require reconciliation.
Later institutional reply · 20 August 2026
In a later reply within the same thread, the Government Secretary confirmed that the correct file is 38/2026 and stated that the governmental file includes the acts of different kinds carried out within it.
The reply declined to confirm the file's specific contents informally. It also reiterated that the Disciplinary Action Promoter's decision had not been recorded as received as of that date. It did not certify incorporation of every annex, forwarding of the appeal or the complete file index.
Supervening sources sent to the High Court
The professional firms are not presented as perpetrators. Their relevance to the High Court is evidential: they identify matter files, communications, conflict records, access logs and other independent points capable of confirming or disproving the requested reconstruction.
2016 legal/strategic work, an express penal-route instruction, written acknowledgement and confirmed direct contact with the insolvency administrator. Preservation, conflict and institutional-memory questions have been put to PwC.
A 2020 conflict process, NDA and forensic proposal; a later professional/commercial relationship requiring entity-, date-, function-, access- and control-level reconciliation. Internal file 2024_04 has been updated.
Ethics review NNR4-1025C2F66 remains open. It has received the public source concerning client introductions into the RICPE investment connected with the same hotel.
What is at stake
The LAJ/Office-of-the-Court plane and the jurisdictional plane are different but not disconnected. Testimonies, statements of finality, notifications, effective access, delivery to third parties and external use may affect remedies, adversarial participation, enforcement, patrimonial protection and effective judicial protection. The Government Secretary is not asked to review the judge's judicial reasoning. The record asks that the documentary relationship between the office, judicial acts and their consequences not be made invisible.
Email sent 20 August 2026
To: Carlos Víctor Rubio Faure, Government Secretary of the Canary Islands High Court
Subject: Re: Notificación Acuerdo Resolutorio EXP. GUB 28/2026
Dear Mr Rubio Faure,
I acknowledge receipt today, 20 August 2026, of the notification email and of the decision signed by you.
At the outset, I ask that a reference discrepancy be clarified and preserved: the email subject identifies “EXP. GUB 28/2026”, while the body of the message, the PDF filename and the decision itself identify Government File 38/2026. Unless informed otherwise, I shall use the latter as the controlling reference.
I also take note that the decision archives the file and expressly recognises the possibility of bringing a hierarchical administrative appeal before the Secretary-General of the Administration of Justice within one month. That appeal will be filed within time. I request now that this response, its links and its two visual annexes be incorporated in full into Government File 38/2026 and transmitted, together with the complete, ordered and indexed file, to the superior authority when the appeal is formalised.
The 15 August application did not ask the Government Secretariat to review the merits of judicial decisions, replace procedural appeals or give an LAJ a particular instruction in a specific proceeding. It requested an autonomous examination of Office-of-the-Court functions and services for which LAJs are responsible: creation, signature, incorporation, notification, issue, certification of finality, delivery, custody, transmission, preservation and traceability of identified instruments.
Accordingly, the decision's statement that it “gives the impression that, the route concerning the Magistrate having been closed, an alternative course is now being taken by directing attention towards the Court Clerk” cannot be treated as a documentary conclusion about the object or motivation of the application. The application expressly separated both planes and explained that partial factual overlap does not mean identity of object.
The LAJ/Office-of-the-Court plane and the jurisdictional plane are distinct, but they are not disconnected. The issue of testimonies, statements of finality, notification, effective access to the file, the possibility of contradiction, delivery to third parties and external use of judicial instruments may directly affect the exercise of remedies, enforcement, patrimonial protection and, consequently, effective judicial protection and the prohibition of defenselessness under Article 24 of the Constitution.
You are not being asked to review the Magistrate's judicial reasoning. It is submitted that the Office-of-the-Court document chain cannot be seriously assessed while ignoring that it gave support, portability and external effects to judicial decisions and could condition the information available to the court itself, the parties' response and the reversibility of the consequences. The Magistrate's conduct and knowledge remain within their proper judicial, appellate, judicial-governance, disciplinary or criminal routes where legally applicable, but cannot be artificially made invisible when determining what is at stake.
Your decision makes a statement of particular significance: ATLANTE itself preserves incorporated electronic information; material incorporated into the file cannot be deleted or altered; and procedural activity is traceable.
That statement does not remove the need for examination. It makes the question more concrete:
If the information is preserved and traceable, it must be possible to certify the sequence of creation, incorporation, signature, notification, access, issue, delivery, correction or replacement of the instruments identified in 2018 and 2021–2022.
From today, that institutional representation is expressly documented and will need to be reconciled with any future statement that the chain cannot be reconstructed, a document cannot be located or its delivery or use cannot be identified.
I therefore request preservation of the entire governmental file and its metadata, intake and allocation records, access events, communications, versions, referrals and incorporation records, without prejudice to preservation in the insolvency proceeding and competent judicial systems.
Since the 15 August filing, specific external sources connected with the same asset and period have been consolidated and formally notified to PwC, Grant Thornton and RSM. None of those firms is presented as the perpetrator of an offence, and the Government Secretariat is not asked to determine professional responsibility. Their relevance to the High Court is different: they identify independent custodians, professional files, conflict controls, communications, access records and other sources capable of confirming or disproving the requested institutional reconstruction.
The contemporary 2016 record documents PwC's knowledge of the Sun Park conflict and participation in the legal and strategic response; receipt of the client's express instruction to pursue “the criminal route against these people”; PwC's response “We take note of your decision”; and later confirmation of direct contact with the insolvency administrator. PwC has now received a formal preservation and response request concerning its files, contacts with the insolvency administrator, conflict management, institutional memory and any later mandate within the Acosta Matos / CAM / RICPE / Hotel New Trend / MYND Yaiza perimeter.
In 2020 Grant Thornton conducted a conflict/confidentiality process and issued a proposed forensic engagement concerning Sun Park and Insolvency 36/2012, in which the insolvency administrator and CAM/Sun Park were identified. An NDA with Grant Thornton Advisory, S.L.P. and formal forensic terms are documented, without the proposal itself proving that the engagement commenced.
Grant Thornton Spain later acknowledged a professional/commercial relationship between the insolvency administrator and a partner entity in the Canary Islands. Internal file 2024_04 has received an update asking whether the 2020 institutional memory remained available and was consulted when that relationship was established or maintained, and what conflict, file-separation and access controls existed.
RSM's ethics review NNR4-1025C2F66 remains open; RSM indicated that it expected to reach conclusions in September 2026. The review has now received a contemporary source particularly relevant to the historic San Telmo professional perimeter.
San Telmo partner Eduardo Sánchez publicly stated that “the firm” introduced clients into the first RICPE investment connected with Sun Park, while Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte was acting as LPB's insolvency administrator within the same historic professional perimeter and in relation to the same hotel.
The statement begins at approximately 08:08 and is completed at approximately 08:12, within the context 07:57–08:27:
Open the source video at 08:08
RSM record · San Telmo / RICPE / Sun Park source
Two complete source-controlled visual exhibits were attached: (1) PwC — the 2016 professional-knowledge checkpoint, five private actors and the court-appointed insolvency administrator as a separate control point; and (2) San Telmo / RICPE / Sun Park — the same hotel and two parallel professional lives, insolvency and investment.
The graphics are visual indexes. They do not replace the original documents and do not by themselves establish coordination, information transfer, unlawfulness or responsibility.
These new sources make it still less sustainable to treat the application merely as an alternative reaction against particular persons.
What is at stake is whether instruments generated and certified within the Administration of Justice later acquired notarial, Registry, patrimonial, corporate, investor, financing and administrative effects, and whether the Administration can reconstruct:
source decision → request → issue → signature → notification → delivery → declared purpose → external use → correction or non-validation → current effect.
The fact that PwC, Grant Thornton and RSM/San Telmo hold or may hold external records does not displace the Administration of Justice's responsibility for its own systems, acts and documentary chains. It enables independent comparison of whether documents used outside the proceeding fully correspond with their origin, scope, finality, notification and later status.
The reconstruction may confirm regularity and disprove hypotheses. It may identify a specific gap. What is not institutionally sufficient is to close the examination by attributing to the applicant an alternative motivation expressly excluded by the filing.
Your decision says that the communication ordered by the Disciplinary Action Promoter to the High Court was for information only and adds that, as of the decision, its receipt was not recorded by the Government Secretariat.
I do not state that the CGPJ failed to send it or that the High Court lost it. I request preservation and verification of the objective sequence:
communication order → date and outgoing channel → recipient → receipt → internal registration → current custodial unit.
Please confirm whether any additional check has been conducted after the decision or whether receipt still does not appear.
No autonomous statutory deadline is asserted for this email. Given the strictly evidential nature of the requests, confirmation of reference, incorporation and preservation was requested within 48 working hours.
I do not attribute corruption, collusion or unlawful intent to you, the Government Secretariat, the LAJs concerned or the Magistrate merely because discrepancies exist or because the file was archived.
I do record something narrower and verifiable: the decision signed by you is an attributable institutional act. From today, you and the Government Secretariat have express notice of the LAJ/Office-of-the-Court dimension, its separate connection with effective judicial protection, the alleged continuation of patrimonial and evidential consequences, the institutional ATLANTE statement and the existence of specific external custodians.
The future receipt, classification, preservation, reasoning, traceability and transmission of this material are therefore subject to documentary control. The institutional response, any correction and also any absence of response will be recorded accurately, preserving the right of correction and without treating silence as proof of guilt.
Yours sincerely,
Gil Marer
Repeated personal identifiers omitted from the public copy.
Status and next steps
The appeal was filed through REGAGE on 20 August 2026 under REGAGE26e00074355631. Evidence of forwarding to the superior authority, admission, a superior reference and complete file association remains pending.
The decision itself says requests 4–8 can be pursued within Insolvency 36/2012. The next control is whether the index, testimonies, notifications and identified metadata are produced.