E.G. 745/2026 · NAT-FIS-004 · VERSION 12 SEPTEMBER 2026
Reconsideration appeal and evidential annex: complete version prepared for signature.
The 12 September set contains all eight appeal grounds, seven requests and three supplementary requests, together with the evidential annex and its matrices. It retains the earlier arguments and develops the ONA/Clubotel financed exit, the distinction between creditor status, title and material conduct, and separate examination of the Insolvency Administrator, the judge and each Public Prosecution act.
Appellant: Gil Marer, solely in his own name and right. References to Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB), Aweswell Limited, Matkator or other entities do not imply that Gil represents them in this appeal.
Status: prepared for signature; filing not verified. Gil's stated target is Monday 14 September 2026. This is a planning date, not a statement of the legal deadline or proof of filing. No filing receipt for this appeal is recorded here. The document is dated on actual signature.
Complete public version of the argument. Personal identification and contact details, private-source fingerprints and reserved details of professional communications are expressly omitted. Complete originals and native sources remain in private custody; this public copy does not replace the original to be signed and filed.
Gil's causal clarification. He states that the forcible seizure of the hotel prevented him from making the 2018 court application for full payment of the final schedule and conclusion under Article 176. The absence of that application is not presented as a negative omission by him. The allegation remains distinct from proof of every condition, act, state of knowledge and effect.
The appeal requests review of the archive decision, examination of the actual corpus, functional attribution, access and preservation. It retains the attributed complaint and criminal hypothesis requiring proof for each actor, alongside adverse decisions, alternative explanations and Fiscal Inspection's jurisdictional limits.
Preserved antecedents · read as of their stated dates
The following content preserves the arguments and limitations of the earlier pages in full. References to a “current”, “outstanding” or yet-to-be-generated version describe the state at that time; the 12 September version and filing status above are the current control. Historical references to other entities do not expand Gil’s capacity in this appeal. Private-source fingerprints are withheld in this public projection.
INSTITUTIONAL UPDATE · 31 AUGUST 2026 · SOURCE → ACTION → RECEIPT CONTROL
Fiscal Inspection E.G. 745/2026: the official Decree is public, the English translation is complete, and the review/action track is being pursued in the open.
The Decree notified on 26 August 2026 archives E.G. 745/2026, describes the originating communication as “confusa e incoherente”, invokes Article 66.1(c) Law 39/2015 and says no irregularity attributable to a particular prosecutor in a particular matter was specified. The Inspection registration, however, contains express scope delimiters, 12 numbered requests and six identified proceedings. This dossier publishes the source, the review issues, the actions being prepared and the evidence still required, without converting those tensions into findings of misconduct or criminality.
ARCHIVED BY DECREE · REVIEW ROUTE OPEN · RECONSIDERATION NOT VERIFIED FILED
Fresh filing-proof control · 31 August 2026. A sent-mail check found no post-notification E.G. 745/2026 reconsideration, no REG-AGE filing receipt and no equivalent merits-filing proof. The controlling status remains PREPARED / OUTSTANDING — NOT YET VERIFIED AS FILED. A repository draft or public webpage is not filing evidence.
Transparency strategy. “Prosecute this matter in the open” is used here in the ordinary sense of publicly pursuing the evidential, review, preservation and accountability case. Por Derecho does not exercise the State's criminal-prosecution function and does not declare any person guilty. Open the live transparency/action ledger →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
The complete text and the privacy-controlled replacement visual are live and deployment-verified.
Official visual facsimile
The raster-first three-page visual derivative is LIVE_VERIFIED. Page 1 masks only the recipient's personal email address; the institutional text, dates, Decree and signatures remain visible. PR #1274 merge 6dc04a8a35c4a096631ca1852ec5fbee96c4965f was deployed by Pages run 33411821984, and readback run 33413265941 matched all 32 release-changed public files byte-for-byte.
Open the live-verified three-page viewer →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Complete English translation
The response package publishes a convenience translation of pages 1–3 directly inline. The Spanish native source and controlled Spanish transcription prevail in case of discrepancy.
Read the full English translation →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Native source:OFICIO Y DECRETO EXP. 745-26.pdf, 3 pages, 1,111,997 bytes. SHA-256 [fingerprint in private custody]. Inspection registration receipt REGAGE26e00070235775, SHA-256 [fingerprint in private custody].
2 · SOURCE-TO-DECREE COMPARISON
A finite review question, not a motive finding.
Decree proposition
Registered source
Controlled review issue
The filing is “confusa e incoherente” and insufficient under Article 66.1(c).
The Inspection registration contains a substantive statement, express scope delimiters and 12 numbered requests.
Identify the particular fact, reason or request said to be unintelligible or insufficient; structure alone does not prove legal sufficiency.
No irregularity attributable to a particular prosecutor in a particular matter was concretised.
The source expressly identifies DI 248/2018, DI 113/2022, DI 22/2026, DIP 2/2026, EG 49/2026 and DP 1901/2026 and asks Inspection to identify who performed specified functional acts from institution-controlled records.
Individual functional attribution was itself an evidential object requested from the institution; that does not predetermine personal liability.
Lack of clarity leads to archive.
The source asks for recovery, connection and cure/subsanación if a necessary item is missing.
Because the Decree itself relies on Article 66, the prepared review asks for an express answer on Article 68 cure and, if inapplicable, the rule displacing it. This is a review argument, not an existing judicial holding.
The Decree refers to an email received 3 August.
The matching Inspection-specific REG-AGE registration was presented/registered late on 2 August.
Request internal routing evidence explaining the path from REG-AGE to the email/source described in the Decree; do not infer concealment or manipulation without evidence.
Evidential boundary. The comparison does not establish bad faith, obstruction, prevarication, coordination or an automatic duty to open an investigation. It identifies review, production and preservation questions for competent determination.
3 · ACTIONS BEING TAKEN / PREPARED
Open status ledger — no upgrade without a receipt.
Action
Current status
Closure proof
Elect merits route: optional reconsideration or direct Supreme Court contentious review
OPEN / CRITICAL
Dated route decision + counsel control + effective-notification verification
Counsel control note; judicial receipt only if later filed
Open the complete public action and transparency ledger →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release. · Historical 29 August action diary →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
4 · REVIEW ROUTES AND DEADLINE CONTROL
One merits fork, with parallel protective work.
A · Optional reconsideration
Seek revocation/reopening or, alternatively, formal cure. Main grounds: actual structure of the source, identified proceedings, requested institutional attribution, Article 68 against the Article 66 framework selected by the Decree, and specific reasons for any claimed lack of clarity.
Working backstop: Monday 28 September 2026, subject to legally effective notification verification and any special rule. File ASAP if elected and substantively approved; the backstop is not the target date.
B · Direct contentious-administrative review
Alternative initial merits route before the Supreme Court's Contentious-Administrative Chamber as stated in the Decree. Exact deadline, standing and Article 128 LJCA interaction remain COUNSEL VERIFY BEFORE FILING.
C · Access / native copy / preservation
Request the complete file/index, native/searchable/verifiable decision, institutional routing and finite preservation of relevant records. These protective actions are not treated as suspending the merits deadline.
D · Separate-route triage
Superior-FGE, disciplinary, criminal, civil/patrimonial or State-liability routes remain route-specific. No automatic criminal filing recommendation arises from an archive decision or sequence of adverse acts.
5 · SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND CONTEXT
Every public proposition should lead to its source or control record.
Core source controls
Controlled Spanish transcription →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Controlled English translation →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Metadata / provenance →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Annex / evidence / gap matrix →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Unitary evidence-to-action digest →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Action / remedy controls
Controlled action diary →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Counter-action matrix →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
31 August open transparency ledger →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Reconsideration draft →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Protective access/preservation draft →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
RPL 2523/2025 evidence map →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Classification-use thesis →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
CGPJ/Public Prosecution routing continuity →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Publication controls
Official visual derivative →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Digitisation / response package →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Open transparency / live action status →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Unitary Public Prosecution record →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Context control. The wider Fiscalía/calificación record is relevant where primary sources support it. Cross-linking does not create a procedural connection and does not itself prove receipt, knowledge, coordination, shared intent or personal criminal responsibility.
Current operating position: Gil Marer and Aweswell Limited treat Ministerio Fiscal/Fiscalía—especially the Canary Islands/Las Palmas offices—as an adverse institutional actor for preservation, notice, recovery and procedural risk. They allege that the criminal threshold had already been crossed before or, at the latest, at the 25 July 2023 hearing. This is an attributed accusation, not adjudicated guilt.
1 · E.G. 745 reconsideration
Merits review of the 26 August Decree. Prepared / outstanding; not verified filed.
2 · Access and preservation
Complete file, index, corpus, routing, allocation, native decision and finite system traces. A draft is not a filed request.
3 · DP 1901 production
Signed Fiscal report, author, received corpus and later judicial decision. Connected through evidence, not merged into E.G. 745.
RPL 2523/2025, preservation and owner-specific harm continue in parallel without double counting.
6 · Public notice and response
Publication, service, receipt, personal access and response are recorded as separate states. Open full notice →Historical reference preserved; this destination is not part of the current public release.
Not executed by this publication. No reconsideration, access request, complaint, criminal filing or authority communication has been made as an automatic consequence of this update. Every external act requires a final package and separate authority.
E.G. 745/2026 belongs to the wider institutional context, but the visible decision is signed by María José Osuna Cerezo and the communication by Olalla Vázquez Moraga. No act in that file is attributed here to Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo.