The former Andalusian president had demanded a "procedural impulse" from the high court in this matter
SEVILLA, 16 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -
The Supreme Court (TS) has clarified that "the actions are pending the expiration of the granted period", thus responding to the request for "procedural impulse" made by the former socialist president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán for the nullity incident that he raised before the high court after he confirmed the sentence of the fraudulent Employment Regulation Files (ERE).
This is how it appears in an ordering procedure issued this past Tuesday and collected by Europa Press, in which the Supreme Court also states, in the face of the annulment incidents raised against its sentence, that "the annulment incident does not suspend the execution of the sentence, where appropriate, it must be requested before the body in charge of its execution", which is none other than the First Section of the Seville Court, which this past Tuesday denied the suspension of prison sentences, in the case of eight of the nine sentenced to prison, including José Antonio Griñán.
In an order issued this past Tuesday, disseminated by the Communication Office of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) and collected by Europa Press, the First Section of the Court of Seville resolves the requests for suspension of the prison sentence promoted by the defenses of Griñán, the former Minister of Finance Carmen Martínez Aguayo, the former Minister of Innovation Francisco Vallejo, the former Minister of Employment and Technological Development José Antonio Viera, the former Minister of Employment Antonio Fernández, the former Vice Minister of Employment Agustín Barberá, the former director of the IDEA agency Miguel Ángel Serrano, the former General Director of Labor Juan Márquez and the former Vice Minister of Innovation Jesús María Rodríguez Román.
Such requests for the suspension of prison sentences were mainly based on requests for partial pardon submitted by those convicted to the Ministry of Justice and the motions for annulment filed before the Supreme Court, which in response to its appeals against the initial conviction of the First Section of the Court, fully confirmed the aforementioned prison sentences except in the case of Juan Márquez, with respect to which it reduced the prison sentence from seven years and one day in prison to three years, by appreciating the analogical mitigation of reparation for the damage.
Apart from reducing Juan Márquez's prison sentence, the Supreme Court confirmed the remaining prison sentences, endorsing the six years and two days in prison imposed by the Seville Court on Griñán.
In this sense, the First Section of the Hearing admits in its pronouncement "the lack of criminal records of those convicted", but on the other hand it points out "the seriousness and length of the sentences for which they have been convicted, which prevents the suspension of the execution of the sentence in all the forms included in article 80 and following of the Penal Code, reason for which all of them have requested the suspension of the execution while the pardon is processed".
"There is no circumstance that advises the suspension of the sentence for a request for pardon", summarize the magistrates, who also point out, regarding the motion for nullity raised before the Supreme Court by the defenses, that "in no way can the presentation of the motion give to the suspension of the execution of the custodial sentences imposed in a final sentence", since this "would imply a breach of the precepts that regulate the suspension of the execution of the sentences and the effective fulfillment of the same".
As the court underlines, "there is no legal support for this court to delay the execution of the sentence, while the annulment incident raised before the Supreme Court is resolved, and even less the precautionary suspension that the convicted persons intend and announce to request from the Constitutional Court ".
As for Márquez, sentenced to three years in prison, the court argues that "his situation is different, the sentence being three and four years less than that of the rest, which together with the lack of a criminal record and objective reasons that determined a quantitative penological reduction in the sentence handed down by the TS, are circumstances to be taken into account so that it proceeds, for a prudential time of one year, to the suspension of the execution of the custodial sentence while the pardon is being processed".
Since this new order is subject to an appeal within two days, the Court finally indicates that once "this resolution is signed, the convicts are required to appear before the court within ten days, for their voluntary admission" in prison.
Previously, let's remember, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the PP of Andalusia, the party involved in the case, had opposed the aforementioned requests for suspension of prison sentences.