The former Vice President of the Government Rodrigo Rato, to which the Supreme Court today confirmed the sentence to four and a half years in prison for the use of the "black" cards of Caja Madrid, can appeal to the Constitutional Court (TC), although this procedure he would not suspend his entry into prison.
According to the experts consulted by Efe, since it is a four and a half year sentence for a single crime, there is no option to suspend it; in this way, once notified, the Supreme Court will return the proceedings to the National Court, which will issue the judgment for admission to prison.
Although the law does not establish a specific limit for entry, the times for the convicted person to start serving their sentence voluntarily are usually very short, between 5 and 10 days. Otherwise, a search warrant would be issued.
Diego Martín, of Lean Abogados, clarifies that the period is usually fixed depending on the seriousness and urgency of the case, so that the more bulky the punishment, the greater the possibility that the income will be immediate.
The firmness of the ruling does not prevent Rato from raising his cause to higher instances; nevertheless, even presenting an appeal of protection to the Constitutional Court for violation of its honor and intimacy – fundamental rights to which already it alluded during the judgment -, the normal thing is that the execution is not suspended.
A recurring assumption of requesting a possible pardon to the Government, which is, today, the least feasible way.
The judgments of the Supreme Court are revocable by the Constitutional Court, as long as a fundamental right has been violated, in accordance with the legal and jurisprudentially established requirements.
The deadline for filing a writ of amparo before the Constitutional Court, in the case of a judicial decision, is 30 days.
In order to be admitted, it must meet a series of requirements, that a fundamental right has been damaged, that all the means of challenge contemplated have been exhausted, or that the infringement of fundamental rights has been previously invoked.
If the TC admits the appeal, this will involve the declaration of nullity of the contested decision, or the recognition of the fundamental right.
Otherwise, we can only go to the European Court of Human Rights, as long as the fundamental right eventually violated is included in the European Convention on Human Rights or in any of its protocols signed by Spain.
Regarding that possible violation of the right to privacy, which Rato already used in his appeal, the Supreme Court understands in the judgment published today that Bankia "did not unlawfully access" personal data relating to the specific expenses incurred by each of the Headlines.
Hence, no such violation has occurred; On the contrary, the entity legitimately accessed information contained in the card issuance contract, the entity's only way of verifying the specific use of the cards and how and when the expenses incurred by their holders were charged. .
Likewise, the judgment recalls that the transfer to the public prosecutor of said data was protected by article 11 of the Organic Law on Data Protection, which does not require the consent of the interested party.