MADRID, 7 May. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, has added a new setback to his management at the head of the Public Ministry since this Tuesday the Supreme Court (TS) has annulled the appointment of Dolores Delgado as prosecutor of Democratic Memory, a decision that It comes after last November the same court found a “diversion of power” on his part in the previous appointment of his predecessor as a prosecutor.
The Fourth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber announced its ruling this Tuesday and is expected to make public the ruling in the coming days in which it will develop the arguments for which it has estimated the resources of the Association of Prosecutors ( AF), the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) and the anti-drug prosecutor Luis Ibáñez, who appeared as a candidate for the position that Delgado finally obtained.
In addition to annulling the Royal Decree by which the appointment was agreed, the Supreme Court has also ordered to roll back the administrative procedure so that the Fiscal Council can rule on whether or not it is compatible for Delgado to assume the position as he is the partner of former judge Baltasar Garzón, who runs a Human Rights foundation.
The high court’s ruling takes place almost a month after the Council of Ministers executed the ruling by which the Supreme Court itself, in November, ordered the annulment of Delgado’s promotion to the highest category as military court prosecutor of the TS.
On that occasion, the Supreme Court partially upheld the appeal presented by the former lieutenant prosecutor of the Court of Accounts, Luis Rueda, and ordered that the proceedings be taken back “to the moment immediately prior to the proposal of the attorney general to the Council of Ministers for the coverage of the square”.
This decision of the TS led to another setback for García Ortiz, given that as a result of that ruling the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) opposed the Executive of Pedro Sánchez choosing him to repeat as attorney general.
At the end of November, the Plenary Session issued a non-binding report in which it explained why it did not consider him suitable for the position: his policy of discretionary appointments, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Delgado, his criteria with the law of ‘only yes means yes’ ‘ and his “inactivity” to defend the prosecutors of the ‘procés’ from ‘lawfare’ accusations. It was an unprecedented statement since the governing body of the judges had never reported against the Moncloa candidate.
However, the president of the CGPJ and five other members wrote a dissenting vote against the majority’s criteria to defend that García Ortiz did meet the merits and requirements to be attorney general and that the Plenary “should have limited itself to verifying his suitability” as established by law and should not have taken into consideration the Supreme Court’s ruling on Delgado’s appointment.
Two months later, the State Attorney General’s Office added another setback when the Supreme Court – against the criteria set by the ‘number two’ of the Public Ministry – agreed to open a criminal case against the former Catalan president and Junts MEP Carles Puigdemont and the deputy of the Parlament of Catalonia Ruben Wagensberg for alleged terrorism in relation to the ‘Tsunami Democràtic’ case.
The high court stressed that Ángeles Sánchez Conde’s report questioned “one by one” the evidence against Puigdemont “with a subjective interpretation of them.” And he recalled that it was not “acceptable to analyze each of those elements and give them another interpretation, or to isolate them from the body of evidence by drawing one’s own conclusions.”
For its part, the Supreme Court aligned itself with the conclusions reached by the majority of the board of prosecutors of the first section of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which on February 6 – by 11 votes to 4 – He assured that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Puigdemont and Wagensberg and – by 12 to 3 – that there could be terrorism crimes.
It is worth remembering that, given the discrepancy in criteria between the two presidents of said section of the board of prosecutors, Sánchez Conde – as hierarchical superior – issued a definitive report to unify the position of the Public Ministry in which he opposed that in the cause of ‘Democratic Tsunami’ Puigdemont and Wagensberg were investigated for terrorism.
Added to the list of setbacks that the Public Ministry has accumulated in recent months is the decision that the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid adopted this Tuesday.
Contrary to the criteria promoted by the ‘number two’ of the Prosecutor’s Office and endorsed by the Board of Chamber Prosecutors, the complaint filed by Alberto G.A., partner of the Madrid president Isabel Díaz Ayuso, against the chief prosecutor of Madrid, has been admitted for processing. Pilar Rodríguez, and the economic crimes prosecutor Julián Salto Torres for the alleged commission of a crime of revelation of secrets by an official.
The alleged revelation of secrets is related to the information note released by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid – on March 14 – in which it was reported on the exchange of emails between the lawyer of the partner of the Madrid regional president and the prosecutor’s office relating to the investigation into alleged tax fraud.
However, the State Attorney General’s Office is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the appeal presented by the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) against the Executive’s decision to renew García Ortiz as head of the Public Ministry.
The APIF went to the high court considering that “he is not suitable to perform” the position, based on the ruling regarding Delgado’s first appointment and his disapproval by the CGPJ.
