The magistrate considers that the expert report presented by the affected parties does not provide any new relevant elements that would allow the provisionally archived proceedings to be resumed last year. This decision comes just over a month after the victims publicly appeared to demand the reopening of the case and denounce “serious errors” in the judicial investigation.
The affected parties maintained that a new report, prepared by a company specialized in fire investigation, questioned the validity of the facade materials and pointed to possible responsibilities that, according to them, had not been sufficiently investigated. However, the judge now considers that the “aspects and interpretations” included in this report “were already duly considered” by both the court itself and the Provincial Court of Valencia.
“"There are no new relevant elements that would alter the conclusions adopted during the investigation."
The prosecutor's office had also opposed reopening the procedure, warning that resuming the case without new evidence would violate the principle of legal certainty. Jurisprudence establishes that a provisionally archived case can only be reopened if new data appears that was not previously in the investigation.
The case had been archived in May 2025 after the judge concluded that the fire had been accidental and that there was no evidence against any person. This decision was subsequently ratified by the Audiencia de Valencia. The report provided by the affected parties specifically questioned the documentation presented on the fire-retardant behavior of the facade materials.
The victims' lawyers argued that some certificates were inadequate or did not comply with the regulations in force at the time of the building's construction. They also denounced that the judicial investigation had too quickly dismissed possible negligence by the construction company or the material manufacturers. Now, however, the magistrate fully adopts the prosecutor's criteria and recalls that all witnesses and technicians who testified during the investigation affirmed that the construction project complied with the applicable regulations on fire safety when the Valencia City Council granted the corresponding licenses.
The resolution specifically mentions Royal Decree 2177/1996 as the regulatory framework in force at that time. The order, notified today to the parties, can still be appealed. Meanwhile, the victims continue to argue that essential aspects of the tragedy have not been sufficiently investigated and maintain pressure for justice to review a case they consider prematurely closed.
