The defense of the former Minister of Transport José Luis Ábalos has presented a brief before the Supreme Court judge who has opened a case against him for his alleged role in the ‘Koldo case’ for which he is appealing the decision to submit a request to the Congress of Deputies for the suspension of his immunity. He insists on emphasizing that there has been an illegal investigation against him.
In the reform appeal, to which he has had access Europa Pressrequests the annulment of the actions “for understand that both procedural guarantees have been violated (…) as the fundamental rights recognized in the Constitution” and advances that if Judge Leopoldo Puente does not attend to this request he will take his appeal to the Constitutional Court (TC) through an appeal for protection for violation of fundamental rights.
Ábalos includes in this document the text of the complaint filed this week before the State Attorney General’s Office (FGE) in which he stated that he was illegally investigated and was seized by the Central Operational Unit (UCO) given that his private correspondence was accessed in violation thus the secrecy of communications.
Furthermore, he explains that Puente’s order that includes the reasons for requesting the request is based on “only three procedures carried out”: The statement of Víctor de Aldama, the alleged achiever of the plot, the statement of Koldo García, who was his advisor in the Ministry, and “telephone observations and documentation” provided by the National Court and carried out by the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard.
“Never in the annals of the National Court”
He points out that the judge explains in his order that he has taken into consideration the documents provided by De Aldama and García, as well as the telephone interventions and home searches, and adds that of the documentation provided “only” is known what was provided by the alleged contractor. .
Furthermore, the former minister’s lawyer explains that he is struck by the fact that the order does not reflect that Ábalos had intervened to receive economic benefits thanks to the awarding of public contracts that are being investigated.
And he remembers that during the interrogation of De Aldama, the judge himself asked him “how he could corroborate the delivery of cash that he did not see, as well as the percentages of distribution between Koldo García and Ábalos.”
After this, he asserts that “There has never been any personal relationship between Mr. Aldama and Mr. Ábalos Meco“, and that the only thing that exists are “De Aldama’s statements that cannot be taken as true.”
He thus regrets that “it is intended to accuse the receipt of metallic cash (fiscally opaque), without there being documentary or graphic evidence, beyond the words of an investigated person” and emphasizes that this is not “sufficient indication but mere suspicion, and “At no time are there proven facts.”
He adds that De Aldama “has achieved his release with some statements he made before the Central Court of Instruction number 2 of the AN and that he was released by the Central Court of Instruction number 5, without being taken to date. statement to know if he cooperates or does not cooperate”.
After this, he highlights that “in the annals of the National Court there is no cooperation with the Public Prosecutor’s Office by virtue of which statements are made to accuse representatives of a Government.” And he adds that “Never in the annals of the AN has an alleged collaborator with the Administration of Justice been released in such an unusual way“.
It is striking, on the other hand, that after “the famous statement” by De Aldama, “no one has asked him for documentation at that time.” “Which means that we are following what De Aldama wants to express,” he adds, adding that he has never been released on a preventive basis “ignoring all penitentiary principles.”
“Very serious events”
After making these assessments, Ábalos’ lawyer recalls that the former minister would have been subject of an investigation by the UCO that must imply the nullity of the actions.
He remembers that the UCO intercepted his “private correspondence”, being certified as a deputy, within the framework of the investigation of the ‘Koldo case’ and emphasizes that with this “extremely serious” fact his fundamental right to the secrecy of communications was violated.
He indicates that the UCO tapped the phone of his former advisor Koldo García and captured a conversation that both had and through which they were able to learn that García would send him documentation that had previously been given to him by the former Undersecretary of Transportation Jesús Manuel Gómez. He indicates that this documentation was going to reach him through Koldo García’s brother, Joseba García.
He notes that on November 4, 2023, Joseba García met him in Valencia, at his home, and that he previously collected that documentation in Madrid from Koldo García. He adds that between Alicante and Valencia, Joseba’s van was intercepted by the Rapid Action Group (GAR) of the Civil Guard and after a search they located the envelope containing the documentation “which was named on the front of it in the name of José Luis Ábalos Meco”. “On the back it was closed and with the official MITMA seal,” he explains in the appeal that reproduces his complaint to the FGE.
The former minister emphasizes that the GAR agents proceeded to open the envelope “and photograph all the documentation it contained.” The lawyer explains that they also “took photographs of him on the way out” and of his car and then found out in police databases the ownership of the car that appears in his name.
The Torre España floor
The lawyer also mentions that Ábalos “neither enjoyed nor perceived“the rent of an apartment in Plaza España in Madrid where his ex-partner resided and remembers that, according to what was stated before Puente, “it was a rented apartment that was paid by the brothers García Izaguirre and –Alberto– Escolano, (. ..) because it was awarded as company housing.” He indicates that in reality, his ex-partner “was never domiciled” in it.
Regarding the rent with option to buy in a chalet in the La Alcaidesa urbanization (Cádiz) – other of the alleged gifts of the plot for Ábalos – the defense explains that it has already documented that the rents for it were paid by the former minister “in its entirety” and that according to the property “it was resolved by mutual agreement between both parties.”
“He could hardly obtain any economic benefit as a result of said lease. and much less when he had to meet the requirements of the Tax Agency as we have proven,” he adds.
After this, he concludes by pointing out that it has been demonstrated “in an unequivocal way (…) that the request lacks the necessary rigor.”
#Ábalos #appeals #request #Supreme #Court #threatens #Constitutional #Court #suffers #rigor
