The PP asks the Supreme Court to summon Delgado and Llop as witnesses for their complaint against the State Attorney General

She says that the attorney general promoted her to "repay the favors received" and believes that this fact is an act of "corruption"

MADRID, 11 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Popular Party, which has already formally presented the complaint it announced a month ago against the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, for alleged prevarication in promoting Dolores Delgado to the highest category of the Public Ministry, has asked the Supreme Court (TS ) that summons Delgado herself and the former Minister of Justice Pilar Llop to testify as witnesses.

This is stated in the complaint, to which Europa Press has had access, that the formation has been filed before the high court against the 'number one' of the Prosecutor's Office for the appointment of Delgado as prosecutor of the Military Chamber in the Supreme Court .

The 'popular' petition the Criminal Chamber to admit their complaint and carry out a battery of proceedings, including claiming from the Contentious-Administrative Chamber the ruling in which they found "deviation of power" on the part of García Ortiz passes promote her predecessor and summon the legal representation of the PP to ratify her complaint.

It also asks the magistrates to call the attorney general to testify as under investigation and to call as a witness - in addition to Delgado and Llop - the prosecutor Luis Rueda, a "candidate harmed" by the decision adopted by García Ortiz. In addition, he requests that the report of the Fiscal Council on the vote by which it was considered that the suitable candidate for coverage was Rueda "above" Delgado be added to the procedure.

The PP defends that García Ortiz's actions are "susceptible to being classified" as a crime of prevarication because he acted with "arbitrariness." "First of all, the fact that he deviated from the opinion of the Fiscal Council - which supported the other candidate, Mr. Luis Rueda, by majority -", he points out while emphasizing that "he also did so without any argumentative effort, without normative support and on the basis of merits outside of military jurisdiction exclusively protected by his exclusive personal obstinacy".

Thus, he insists on his thesis that the attorney general "formulated his proposal knowing that Dolores Delgado was not the ideal candidate to fill the vacancy." According to the 'popular', García Ortiz proposed her "arbitrarily and despite not being the best positioned candidate."

Thus, the PP points out that Delgado "met the minimum requirements to be considered for the vacancy and to be promoted to the highest category of the tax career, as she belonged to the second category of the tax career and had at least twenty years of service." in the tax career". However, it is also true that the other candidate "met these same requirements and, in addition, had experience in military jurisdiction," emphasizes the PP.

The 'popular' explain that, with two candidates for a single position, and since only one of them can be proposed, "it is necessary to propose the candidate who offers a greater degree of compliance with the requirements, even if the other minimally meets them." "In such a case of competition, whoever meets the minimum does not meet the required requirements," emphasizes the PP.

For all this, the PP assures that the defendant made use of his power to propose the prosecutor of the Togada Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court for two purposes: "to pay a personal debt of gratitude" to Dolores Delgado and "to ensure that the previous prosecutor General of the State will rejoin the fiscal career in the highest category, despite the fact that there is no legal provision that this should be the case.

In its complaint, the PP repeatedly points out that Álvaro García promoted Delgado because "it was time to pay for the favors received," after having been appointed attorney general. "To this end, in fulfillment, surely, of promises previously made, the defendant insists on proposing to the Government the promotion of his former boss to the status of Court Prosecutor, as well as her appointment as Court Prosecutor of the Togada Prosecutor's Office. of the Supreme Court," he adds.

According to the PP, the defendant "put his personal, subjective and arbitrary criteria before the strictly technical opinion, based on the principles of equality, merit and capacity, formulated by the Fiscal Council", when proposing the appointment of Delgado to be Promoted in category and appointed Chamber Prosecutor of the Robed Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court.

"It is known that it is a place widely known for its 'comfort' in terms of the intensity of daily tasks and good remuneration. That is, a 'quiet' and well-paid destination in which you can enjoy maximum benefits and distinctions that the tax career in Spain offers to its members," adds the PP in its writing.

For all this, Alberto Núñez Feijóo's party insists that the defendant "kept" his word and "returned the favors received" to Delgado, guided "exclusively by his passion for the beneficiary," according to what the PP said, and "making use of his public position and making use of the arbitrary and capricious exercise of the prerogatives that corresponded to him as a State Attorney General."

"That is, he paid with a public position for the favors received from Mrs. Delgado until he was appointed Attorney General of the State, being a candidate who objectively had fewer merits than another member of the prosecutor's career concurrent with her in the procedure to be the recipient of the promotion in the tax career and subsequent appointment to the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court," insists the PP.

The 'popular' consider that these events "constitute acts of corruption in the use of the prerogatives that correspond to him as attorney general of the State and are typified in article 404 of the Penal Code."

In its complaint, the PP emphasizes the "close relationship" between Delgado and Álvaro García, "a manifest friendship that has materialized in a continuous exchange of favors that has benefited both parties and their corresponding professional careers."

In fact, the PP highlights that the intervention of the defendant in the vote of the Fiscal Council in favor of Delgado, "despite having it prohibited by law", explains his personal interest in Delgado being selected for the vacancy that he finally filled in the Prosecutor's Office of the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court.