Both processes are pending judgment but the defendants have alleged possible prescription of accounting liability
MADRID/SEVILLA, 2 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -
The Second Department of the Prosecution Section of the Court of Accounts has issued two orders, through which it suspends two reimbursement procedures due to scope related to social and labor aid for early retirement granted by the Junta de Andalucía charged to budget item 31L of the funds autonomous, used to finance fraudulent employment regulation files (ERE) and some of them even unnecessary.
It is, according to the Court of Auditors, a refund procedure due to the scope of social and labor aid for early retirement in the Jerez-based company González Byass, which between 2008 and 2010 had 19.75 million euros for an ERE; and of another similar procedure regarding the company Intesur, based in Morón de la Frontera (Seville) and dedicated to textile manufacturing.
The orders, dated December 1, have been handed down once the corresponding trials have been held in the Chamber of Justice of the Court of Accounts and only pending ruling.
The proceedings resolve to suspend the proceedings due to criminal prejudicial action, that is, until it is proven that the proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction that are being followed for the same facts prosecuted have ended by final judicial resolution or are paralyzed for reasons that have prevented their normal continuation, since the Court of Seville has already held the criminal proceedings corresponding to six of the pieces that make up the macro-cause of the fraudulent employment regulation files, still pending the pieces corresponding to the companies referred to in these cars.
The suspension for criminal prejudice has been determined because in both reimbursement procedures due to scope, one or more of the defendants have alleged the possible prescription of the accounting liability that could be demanded of them, due to the elapse of the time periods included in the Third Additional Provision of Law 7/1988, April 5, on the Operation of the Court of Accounts (LFTCU).
The aforementioned Additional Provision establishes in its fourth section that, when the facts are constitutive of a crime, the accounting responsibilities will prescribe in the same way and in the same terms as the civil responsibilities derived from the crimes. Therefore, the eventual application of this rule requires the prior declaration of the facts as criminal, a function that is the exclusive responsibility of the criminal jurisdiction.
Therefore, in order to determine whether to apply the previous rule regarding the prescription of accounting liability, it is necessary to suspend the accounting procedures of reference until the criminal jurisdiction determines by final judicial resolution if the facts prosecuted constitute a crime, or No.
In both proceedings, the pronouncements contained in judgment 1479/2020, of November 10 (Fourth Section; appeal 5332/2018), issued by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has come to interpret the content of the judgment, have been followed. mentioned Third Additional Provision of the LFTCU, establishing the corresponding doctrine of appeal interest, for those cases in which the same facts were being prosecuted in the Criminal Jurisdiction and in the Accounting Jurisdiction, and in the latter the prescription of liability had been alleged accountant.