It gives three days for the Prosecutor’s Office to allege and the accusations after the consultation already carried out on the same request for pardons
SEVILLA, 7 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The First Section of the Court of Seville has issued a new order, with which it accounts for the requests for suspension of the sentence of the defenses of those sentenced to prison in the sentence of the specific procedure through which the Board channeled subsidies for early retirement in Fraudulent employment regulation files (ERE) and arbitrary aid to companies; requests among which is that of the former socialist president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán and that wields the incidents of nullity raised before the sentence issued in this regard by the Supreme Court.
And it is that the aforementioned former regional president weighs a sentence of six years and two days in prison and 15 years and two days of disqualification for continued crimes of embezzlement and prevarication, against which he has formalized a request for pardon to the central Government, object prior consultation by this section of the Court.
Specifically, in this order issued last Friday and collected by Europa Press, the First Section of the Seville Court states that during the past month of October, it has been receiving different writings from the defenses of Griñán, the former Minister of Finance Carmen Martínez Aguayo, the former Minister of Innovation Francisco Vallejo, the former Minister of Employment and Technological Development José Antonio Viera, the former Minister of Employment Antonio Fernández, the former director of the IDEA agency Miguel Ángel Serrano, the former General Director of Labor Juan Márquez, the former Deputy Minister of Innovation Jesús María Rodríguez Román and the former General Director of Budgets of the Board Vicente Lozano.
In all these writings, according to the ruling, the defenses request the suspension of the sentences imposed on the accused thanks to the filing in the vast majority of cases of incidents of nullity before the Supreme Court, with respect to the sentence of said instance that resolves the cassation appeals filed against the initial sentence of the First Section of the Court of Seville, which sentenced 19 of the 21 former senior socialist officials of the Junta de Andalucía judged by the financing system of the ERE.
This sentence of the Supreme Court, let us remember, absolves three technical general secretaries initially convicted by the Court of Seville and reduces the sentence of the former General Director of Labor Juan Márquez for appreciating the analogical mitigation of damage repair; maintaining that yes the rest of sentences imposed by the First Section of the Hearing.
In saying that it confirmed the prison sentences for José Antonio Griñán, the former Employment Ministers Antonio Fernández and José Antonio Viera; the former Minister of Innovation Francisco Vallejo; the former Deputy Minister of Employment Agustín Barberá; the former Treasury Minister Carmen Martínez Aguayo; former director general of IDEA Miguel Ángel Serrano; the former General Director of Labor Juan Márquez and the former Deputy Minister of Innovation Jesús María Rodríguez Román.
After giving an account of such writings, the First Section of the Seville Court agrees to transfer them to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and to the personal accusations, “so that they can allege what is appropriate within three days”, in the case of a provision susceptible to appeal.
Previously, let us remember, the First Section of the Seville Court had already asked the parties if it suspended the entry into prison of the aforementioned defendants sentenced to prison, pending the processing of their respective pardon requests to the central Government, already weighing a report from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office that opposes the requests to suspend the execution of prison sentences.
In their brief, the Anticorruption prosecutors point out that the Criminal Code “refers to the fact that, if the sentence is executed, the purpose of the pardon could be illusory.” Specifically, they explain that the clemency measure has an “exceptional nature” because “the public interest demands that final judicial decisions be complied with.”
