Former police officer Rosa Peral, sentenced to 25 years for murder in the so-called crime of the Urban Guardclaims Netflix and the production company of the series The body on fire nearly 30 million euros for violation of his rights and those of his daughter. In the lawsuit filed by the former Barcelona municipal police officer before the court of first instance of Vilanova i la Geltrú (Barcelona), she considers that Netflix and the production company Arcadia have violated the rights to honor, self-image and privacy both of her as of her daughter.
As El Periódico reported this Monday and Rosa Peral’s lawyer, Núria González, confirmed to EFE, the former police officer is asking for 26.5 million euros for her daughter – 1 euro for the number of hours the series has been played – and 2,600 ,000 euros for her -10 cents per hour-. The lawsuit states that the series goes beyond the facts proven in the ruling, despite the fact that the fiction maintains that it is based on real events. The 19th section of the Barcelona Court upheld Peral’s appeal against the court of Vilanova i la Geltrú, considering that the lawsuit he presented to have the premiere of the series provisionally suspended The body on fire on Netflix it should have been processed.
The court dismissed it considering that it had not submitted the deposit required to file legal actions of this type. The lawyer appealed the decision, alleging that Peral could not present it because he is in prison and has yet to pay 800,000 euros in compensation for the murder of his ex-partner, also an agent of the force and whom he killed along with a partner, with whom he formed a triangle. loving. The Barcelona Court finally agreed with Peral’s lawyer, arguing that the claims should only be inadmissible for processing “in an exceptional manner and when the law expressly establishes it.” The court considered that the court of first instance should have decided first whether the adoption of the precautionary measures proposed by Peral was appropriate, without hearing Netflix’s arguments, and subsequently called the parties to the mandatory hearing to discuss the allegations relating to the type and amount of the deposit.
