“The body on fire”: Rosa Peral wins battle against Netflix for a series with Úrsula Corberó inspired by her case | SKIP-ENTER

Rosa Peral won a legal battle against Netflix for the premiere of the series “The body on fire” which, according to what the Barcelona Court ruled this week, its streaming output had to be provisionally suspended. Pear Roseconvicted of the murder of her ex-partner that is narrated in this series, alleges that this audiovisual product was an attack on her honor and justice has ruled in her favor.

In 2020, the Barcelona Court sentenced Peral to 25 years in prison for murdering his partner, Pedro R., in his home in Vilanova i la Geltrú (Barcelona) along with his then-lover who was also convicted, Albert López. , all of them members of the Barcelona Urban Guard.

LOOK: Up to 30% discount. in the best of entertainment. Find out all the promotions here

After committing the murder, the two convicted men hid the body in the trunk of a car and set it on fire near the Foix reservoir.

What does Rosa Peral’s lawsuit against the Netflix series say?

Rosa Peral filed a lawsuit requesting the adoption of precautionary measures to paralyze the premiere of the series and be able to view it before its broadcast on Netflix, a request that the justice system rejected, so that “The Burning Body” finally reached the platform on last September 8, 2023.

Eight months later, the court agrees with Peral and admits that the lawsuit he presented should have been processed.

LISTEN TO THE NEW “SKIP INTRO” PODCAST

The order specifies that the petition of the woman convicted of the crime was rejected for not having provided the security – financial amount in deposit – that is required to file judicial actions of that type.

What determined justice?

Rosa Peral’s lawyer alleged that the former Barcelona urban guard could not provide bail because she is in prison and pending to pay 800,000 euros in compensation for the murder of her ex-partner.

The Barcelona Court now agrees with Peral, arguing that claims should only be inadmissible for processing “in an exceptional manner and when the law expressly establishes it.” For this reason, the court maintains 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 summon the parties to the mandatory hearing to discuss the relative allegations. to the type and amount of the bond.

The court now agrees to annul the appealed order and orders Peral’s request to be processed.