The former president of the Junta de Andalucía Manuel Chaves has announced to the Provincial Court of Seville his intention to appeal the ruling of the political piece of the ERE because, in his opinion, the decision of the court that tried him violates several constitutional precepts and laws.
The First Section of the Hearing sentenced Chaves on November 19 to nine years of disqualification for a continued crime of prevarication in the case of the EREs on the grounds that it was “fully aware of the patent illegality” of the facts tried, “in those who participated “.
In a brief filed before the same Chamber on January 20, to which Efe has had access, the defense of Chaves considers that the sentence “is not adjusted to law, as well as severely harmful” for the former leader of the PSOE, and explains that will formulate the appeal for “violation of constitutional precept and violation of law”.
As for the constitutional requirements, the former president’s lawyer indicates that the sentence has “violated” his rights to the presumption of innocence, a process with all guarantees and effective judicial protection.
It will also base its appeal to the Supreme Court on an “error in the assessment of the evidence”, for which it refers to several minutes of government councils of the Junta de Andalucía in which the community budgets were approved between 2002 and 2009 or files of the control program for companies subject to financial control by the regional Executive.
Regarding the violation of the law, the representative of Chaves points out that the court that judged the political piece of the ERE case improperly applied the articles referring to the crime of prevarication or “substantive precepts of laws and regulations, both state and regional” relating to the powers and powers of the Chairman of the Board in relation to the Budget Law and budgetary modifications.
In the sentence that condemns him, the First Section recalls that Chaves presided over the Board “when the first aid began to be articulated” to workers affected by ERE in the late 1990s and in the year 2000.
“The decision to give these grants was not based on the Ministry of Employment, but was a political decision of the Government as a whole,” the judgment reasons.
“It is logical that any variation in the system of granting these grants, given that it affected more than one council, had to go through the final decision of its superior, that is, the president of the Board,” highlights the resolution of the rapporteur, Juan Antonio Calle Peña.