A constitutional magistrate already warned that the revision of the ERE can violate European law

That was the beginning of the money laundering of figures such as Magdalena Álvarez or President Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán, who continued on Pedro Sánchez rallies with masses of socialism. Now the First Section of the Provincial Court of Seville has decided interpose a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union before giving a period of ten days to the parties to pronounce.

Both the clean hands or the PP union had requested to explore this route, that now the Seville audience. He does it with the precedent of other other courts, such as the National Court, the TSJ of Catalonia or Court of Accounts, which have already carried out similar initiatives on the occasion of the Amnesty Law.

And now is when that particular vote rumbles Enrique Arnaldo Alcubillalike the judicial conscience within a plot that looted the money from the unemployed in Andalusia to deliver them to related, friends and family. Two more magistrates adhered to that vote for their conclusions, which said that the resource of Gaspar Zarrías had to be dismissed.

«It should be remembered that the contested sentences in Amparo condemned the appellant and other high positions of the Junta de Andalucía in the specific piece of the ‘case of the ERE of Andalusia’, which planned a system of concession and execution of exceptional socio -labor aid avoiding control of public spending», Says the magistrate in his vote. To that he adds that the convicted “devised a relatively simple and extremely effective mechanism.” He explains that it was made for “a change in budget classification of spending.”

In this way, he exposes how erroneous two premises held by the sentence signed by Conde-Pumpido as president of the TC. On the one hand, this magistrate did not believe the “alleged healing virtue of Andalusia Budget Laws for the years 2002 to 2009”. For this magistrate, the convicted were not protected by the Budget Law, but neither by “the attribution to the economic memory of complementary value and efficacy of the Budget Law.”

And it focuses on the application of the principles of the Law of the European Union in the field of public spending control, as a containment dam in the fight against fraud and political corruption. «I do not seem to affirm that the case of the ERE of Andalusia, and as can be seen from the convictions that are challenged in amparo, it has been contrary not only to the principles of domestic law, but also To the principles of the Law of the European Union», Says this judge.

The magistrate states that the application of European law does not imply a reduction in fraud controls. It is there where Estimate the violationsince the thesis defended by the Constitutional Court implies a reduction of fraud control levels with respect to Europe. Despite that the funds are not European, it ensures that the same guarantees that Europe exposes themselves should have been applied.

At the same time, he remarks that «it has been proven that in the case of the ERE of Andalusia, the Emergence of ordinary controls of public spending, which meant the weakening of the mechanisms to prevent corruption ».

In his particular vote, this judge of the Constitutional Court exposed that the elimination of these controls, in the abstract, is already reproachable, but, in addition, taking into account that the funds were managed without the minimum guarantees of advertising and competitive concurrence for their obtaining by individuals, “the Weakening of controls facilitated the appearance of corruption cases ».

“One of the most serious corruption cases”

In this way, Judge Enrique Arnaldo Alcubilla “attracts attention” the eloquent contrast between the reinforced protection that the European Union attributes to the crime of embezzlement of public flows and the response given by the sentences of the TC to «One of the most serious cases of political corruption institutionalized in Spain ».

In addition, the particular vote issued by this magistrate reproaches that the Constitutional annul oral trial with full guarantees of immediacy, contradiction and defense, and through a subsumption of the facts proven in the criminal type that cannot be described as unpredictable or unreasonable.

That is why it considers that “it is especially difficult” to reconcile the decision of the judgment of this court, which leads to the dessert to leave unpunished behaviors of special severity committed by concrete political responsible in the performance of its public functions, with the effort of the European Union by Eliminate impunity margins to prevent political corruption ».