Seville Court Questions Constitutional Protection for Chaves and Griñán

The First Section of the Seville Court, responsible for issuing new sentences following the Constitutional Court's (CC) decision to annul convictions of a dozen individuals involved in the fraudulent employment regulation files (ERE) funded by the Andalusian government, has opened a period for parties to express their views on whether the CC "overstepped" in its rulings with an "alternative interpretation of embezzlement and prevarication," questioning if this doctrine "violates international anti-corruption standards" and considering the possibility of not applying such sentences.

This is stated in an order issued this past Tuesday and reported by Europa Press, after the Constitutional Court, with a majority of seven judges in favor and four against, partially accepted the appeals for protection from ten former socialist leaders of the Andalusian government convicted by this provincial court for prevarication and, in some cases, also for embezzlement, in the specific procedure of regional funding of fraudulent EREs and arbitrary and unpublicized aid to companies.

Given the case, the CC annulled the Seville Court's conviction regarding former socialist leaders of the Junta, such as former regional presidents Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán, former socialist minister and Andalusian Economy Councillor Magdalena Álvarez, former socialist Employment Councillor Antonio Fernández, former socialist Finance Councillor Carmen Martínez Aguayo, former socialist Innovation Councillor Francisco Vallejo, and former Deputy Innovation Councillor Jesús María Rodríguez Román.

After annulling these convictions, the Constitutional Court ordered the First Section of the Court to issue new sentences, taking into account the legal grounds incorporated by the court into the matter.

Broadly speaking, the CC declared that the First Section of the Seville Court in its initial conviction and the Supreme Court in dismissing the cassation appeals of the accused, had "engaged in an extravagant and unpredictable interpretation of the typical elements of 'resolution' and 'administrative matter' that violates the fundamental right to criminal legality guaranteed by Article 25 of the Spanish Constitution."

According to the CC, "it cannot be considered that participation in the approval of budget bill drafts and their approval as bills can be classified as resolutions in administrative matters"; warning that "judges, who are subject to the rule of law, have the duty to respect it regardless of their opinion on its content" and "only when they consider it unconstitutional and its validity depends on the ruling should they raise a question of unconstitutionality, but outside this case, they cannot question its determinations."