He highlights that “he had the capacity to prevent” the “illegalities perpetrated” in an embezzlement of “close to 700 million” euros
The ruling states that “it is contrary to reason” to assume that he did not know about the irregularities
The Supreme Court has ensured that the former president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán was “aware of the illegality” of the criteria followed with the EREs while highlighting his “passivity” in the face of “waste and arbitrariness” with the that the aid was granted, as stated in the 1,205-page sentence that was released this Wednesday and whose ruling had been advanced on July 26.
Thus, the High Court has confirmed the conviction of the former presidents of the Andalusian Government Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán for the irregular use of regional subsidies for Employment Regulation Files (ERE).
In the resolution, collected by Europa Press, it is stated that the sentence of 9 years of disqualification for prevarication for Chaves is maintained. For Griñán, for his part, the 6 years in prison for prevarication and embezzlement are confirmed, although his family has already presented the request for pardon to the Ministry of Justice.
The ruling clarifies that the defendants “have not been convicted because of their position, but because the different assumptions typical of the imputed crimes have been proven and because it has been proven that they acted with full knowledge of the facts.”
The decision of the Chamber has the dissenting opinion of the magistrates Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo, who have considered that the appeals presented by Griñán, Miguel Ángel Serrano, Jesús María Rodríguez, Francisco Vallejo and Carmen Martínez should have been partially upheld, in the sense of having been acquitted for the continuing crime of embezzlement of public funds.
The court has concluded that Griñán “had a central role in the preparation and approval of the budget regulations as a result of the powers assigned to his positions.” “It is reasonable to presume a high level of knowledge of these rules as well as of the problems that could arise in the preparation of budgetary instruments,” adds the ruling.
According to the Supreme Court, the “use of financing transfers to circumvent the subsidy regulations and, singularly, the prior control of the Intervention was already a very revealing fact that the management of the aid could give rise to arbitrariness and waste”.
“But the actual knowledge of the absolutely illegal manner that was being used for the granting and payment of the aid is sufficient evidence to declare that Mr. Griñán assumed the eventuality that the transferred funds could be used for purposes other than the public interest. “, it states.
Griñán himself, along with the rest of the convicts and thanks to his “decisions” and his “active behavior, made possible the illegal distribution of subsidies amounting to nearly 700 million euros and over a long period of 10 years.”
The ruling makes it clear that “the management of these flows was carried out as if they were their own, in favor of freely determined companies and individuals and according to the preferences and political interests of the authorities that granted the subsidies.”
HAD “CAPACITY TO PREVENT” THE “ILLEGALITIES”
And it is that, the High Court insists, it is declared proven that Griñán “was aware of the illicit acts perpetrated with those funds and, as a consequence of the powers that corresponded to him, when exercising the highest functions within the Government of the Andalusian Government, he had the capacity to prevent this mode of management”.
All this despite the fact that the Supreme Court recognizes that “Griñán had no specific knowledge of a large part of the numerous illegalities that were taking place in the granting of aid.” Of course, they add that “for the duty to act to arise, preventing the financing of the illegal system implemented, an exhaustive knowledge of each and every one of the illegalities was not necessary.”
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, “the content of the aforementioned reports was enough, which already gave an account not only of a manifestly illegal situation, maintained over time, but of an absolute lack of control and waste in the management of public funds.”
Thus, and “although it is true that Griñán cannot be attributed the events that occurred prior to taking up the post of Minister of Economy and Finance”, the Supreme Court explains that the events “which occurred before his appointment are not alien”. “Because when he issued the resolutions described as prevaricators he did so knowing all the irregularities that were taking place and that took place from the year 2000,” the sentence clarifies.
The extensive ruling details exhaustively that the resolutions issued by the former Andalusian president “were manifestly illegal because the rules clearly established that social and labor aid were subsidies and the controls and budgets legally established for this type of monetary delivery had to be complied with.”
RESOLUTIONS “UNFAIR FOR GROSSLY BREACHING THE LAW”
In this regard, the High Court refers very specifically to the aforementioned regulated administrative resolutions that it issued: “They were manifestly unfair for clearly and grossly transgressing the law.”
Contrary to what Griñán’s defense put forward in his appeal, the Supreme Court is blunt: “It is contrary to reason to assume that Mr. Griñán did not read any document, not even those that warned of illegalities, nor that he was not informed by any of the authorities that were under his supervision and that were hierarchically subordinate to him”.
But the fact is that, in addition, the High Court explains that “the information channels available to Mr. Griñán to warn what was happening were very diverse and that diversity, together with the relevance of the problem, allow us to infer from criteria of rationality and common sense that he was aware of the illegality of the budgeting criterion that had been used to avoid compliance with the regulations on subsidies”.
“And he was also aware of the illegalities that had been taking place in the granting and payment of aid, making it possible with his passivity for this situation to continue throughout the period of time contemplated in the sentence,” concludes the Supreme Court.
