Margot Llobera criticises Batllia for police handover and delays in probe

Former motorcycle racer and designer Margot Llobera has criticised the Batllia for delegating the investigation of allegedly sexist defamations against her to the police. Llobera filed a criminal complaint in March 2020 over insulting Instagram posts and stories she says targeted her as a woman and sought to damage her dignity, self‑esteem and sponsorships.

Llobera has repeatedly complained about the delay in resolving the case. In February the Constitutional Court (TC) ruled that the Batllia was operating with abnormal slowness and gave it six months to take a decision or to justify a further delay. After eight months with no resolution, Llobera returned to the TC to renew her complaint.

This time the Constitutional Court did not uphold her appeal. The TC noted that, even before its earlier pronouncement, the specialised Batllia had transferred the matter to an ordinary instruction section, meaning there had been procedural movements in the case.

The court’s decision restates the description of the Instagram material as having a marked sexist character that mocked Llobera’s condition as a woman and contained insults intended to harm her dignity and commercial relations. At the same time, the TC concluded that, despite the regrettable delay, there had been judicial activity and therefore did not grant the relief Llobera sought.

In her appeal, Llobera argued that it was inappropriate for the judicial office to hand over the investigation to the police because she suspects some members of the force may be among the alleged perpetrators. She said it would have been procedurally preferable for the Batllia’s judicial office to summon suspects directly rather than entrust such a sensitive inquiry to the police, and criticised the uncertainty over when and how police statements would be taken.

She also criticised the overall handling of the file, saying it had been passed between different judicial offices and that nearly three years had elapsed before some people were summoned for their statements.

The procedural shifts between court sections are cited by the TC as part of the reason it found there had been movement in the case, even if the matter remains unresolved. According to the court record, at present the case is not regarded as showing a discriminatory intent.

Llobera’s challenge to the handling and pace of the investigation therefore remains unresolved; the Constitutional Court declined to admit her most recent appeal for processing on the grounds that procedural actions had already been taken within the judicial system.