The judge proposes to bench Real Madrid for the “excessive noise” at the Bernabéu concerts

The 53rd Investigative Decide of Madrid has proposed sending Actual Madrid and the only real administrator of the corporate that manages the Santiago Bernabéu to trial after seeing indicators of against the law towards the surroundings within the live shows held between April and September 2024 on the Merengue membership’s stadium.

That is said in an order, to which Europa Press had entry and towards which there’s an enchantment, through which the Justice of the Peace terminates the investigation opened following a criticism from affected neighbors and agrees to proceed the proceedings via the procedures of the abbreviated process.

It does so in case the investigated details attributed to José Ángel SP, sole administrator, and Actual Madrid represent a felony offense. Thus, it forwards to the Public Prosecutor’s Workplace, and to the personal accusations made, in order that they’ll formulate a doc of accusation, requesting the opening of an oral trial or the dismissal of the case.

The case is closed after the choose concludes that the actions taken point out that the details reported may represent a felony offense attributed to these investigated.

Neighbors’ criticism

The investigation was opened pursuant to a criticism filed in July 2024 by the Neighborhood Affiliation of Folks Injured by the Bernabéu dated July 15, 2024 for alleged felony acts that occurred in Madrid because of the “extreme noise” of the live shows held on the Santiago Bernabéu after its transforming.

“From the proceedings carried on the market are indications that Actual Madrid Estadio, SLU, managed by José Ángel Sánchez Periañez, which operates the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium in Madrid, contracted with music promoters to carry live shows in the course of the interval between April 26, 2024 and September 8, 2024,” describes the choose.

It concludes that “there are indications that in all of the live shows the sound limits established within the relevant municipal rules on noise had been exceeded, with the Madrid Metropolis Council having initiated a number of disciplinary proceedings towards promoters, classifying the occasions as very critical infractions and imposing fines for quantities roughly between 16,000 euros and 148,000 euros.”

Within the investigation, all of the procedures deemed vital have been carried out to find out the character and circumstances of the occasions, the individuals who participated in them, in addition to the physique competent for the prosecution.

As a part of the investigation, the choose requested from the Madrid Municipal Police all of the data of noise measurements carried out within the neighborhood of the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium from April 26, 2024 to July 15, 2024, on the event of live shows held within the stadium.

The Justice of the Peace additionally requested data on the variety of calls or phone complaints obtained at 092 denouncing “extreme noise” because of these occasions.

The neighbors’ criticism said that these live shows, after the transforming of the white coliseum, represent an environmental crime and said that “from the primary” the noise emission limits established within the municipal rules have been exceeded, with out adopting “any measure within the constructing to keep away from the undesirable penalties” and said that each the mayor and the City Planning delegate “understand it, settle for it, and tolerate it”, making “an inconceivable abandonment of their most important duty”, which is “the safety of the rights and pursuits of the neighbors, and never these of the personal entity”.

Within the documentation supplied by the complainants, it’s maintained that the license that Actual Madrid obtained in 2019 for the renovation works of its stadium “doesn’t think about” the choice of utilizing the stadium for any use aside from the celebration of soccer matches, in order that “for the celebration of different occasions comparable to live shows, the availability of the corresponding authorization for every particular case could be vital,” they careworn.

The criticism comprises a listing of the musical reveals and live shows scheduled since April 2024 and states that the sound they produce “includes non-compliance with the city planning license that requires the adoption of soundproofing measures.”

Additionally it is said that the proprietor of the Santiago Bernabéu “had not carried out any research to forestall the discharge of noise in the course of the celebration of the occasions” and, in line with the criticism, within the live shows held to this point “the Metropolis Council obtained quite a few complaints about insufferable noise”, accompanying this argument with skilled acoustic engineering stories evaluating the immission of noise within the exterior surroundings because of the celebration of the live shows through which the noise stage allowed by the rules has been exceeded.

Particularly, it refers to Taylor Swift’s live shows on Could 29 and 30; Duki’s on June 8; that of Manuel Carrasco on July 3, and people of Luis Miguel on July 6 and seven, in all of which the permitted noise stage would have been exceeded, maintains the neighborhood affiliation.

On this sense, the complainant maintains that the actions of the defendants are “absolute indolence within the protection of the rights of the neighbors” and reproaches the Metropolis Council, which “is aware of the state of affairs”, for having “restricted itself” to processing disciplinary proceedings towards the builders for exceeding the permitted decibels, with the imposition of fines of 20,000 euros, which they describe as “ridiculous.”

The Courtroom acknowledges in its order that it can not “analyze the correctness of the sanctioning recordsdata” processed by the Consistory and it’s not its duty to “analyze the correctness of the recipient of the recordsdata, the sanctions imposed and their grading”, with out there being “indications that within the processing of the recordsdata some authorized principle which will fall throughout the felony class of prevarication has been clearly and evidently violated.”

Likewise, it highlights that the defendants “combine an administrative construction with division and delegation of capabilities”, so in accordance with jurisprudence “it might be vital for them to have purposeful management of the actual fact”, with out “goal attributions of duty for the place they occupy within the Metropolis Council” with the ability to be made.