The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has appealed the judgment of the Valencia Court in the so-called Alqueria case, in which former Socialist Provincial Council President Jorge Rodríguez and 14 others (both PSOE and Compromís) were acquitted. accused of hiring like-minded people “outside the law”. The prosecutor not only appeals the verdict, but also requests that the trial be repeated in another court.
The main protagonist of the verdict, imposed two days after the regional elections, although the trial ended on November 22, was Jorge Rodríguez, who again secured an absolute majority at the head of the Ontinyent City Council with the Ens Uneix party He founded after he had been suspended from membership in the PSPV-PSOE precisely for this case and his decision is crucial for the left to retain the Diputación de Valencia, the only major center of power that it would not lose in the Valencian Community.
“The judgment contains a number of factual statements that determine the meaning of the judgment, which do not lack any legal basis and contradict essential norms of the legal system, which tend to prevent exactly what the judgment made considers valid,” said the prosecutor in his brief.
All of the accused were acquitted after the Valencia court considered that “while the seams could be enforced in a contractual modality that was perhaps not the most appropriate to the functions, skills and powers that the people or some of them “(…)” holding the option for this contractual modality does not constitute a blatant and vocal violation of law as required by the crime of subterfuge, nor can it constitute a crime of untruth. “We cannot assume that the new Imelsa structure was based on a need or a willingness to hire specific people to render favors or grant perks. “We rather assume that the order was reversed,” says the verdict.
However, the prosecutor considers that the court made an error of assessment and that the contracts were concluded “because of the political ideology of the parties”, which, in his view, contradicts “the legal requirements that the legislature precisely to avoid political established clientelism”. “.
The judgment states: “We cannot assume that the new structure of Imelsa (public company) was based on a need or a willingness to hire certain people in order to render favors or grant advantages”. that the order was reversed,” he affirms. The public prosecutor also considers this consideration to be incorrect: “The chronology of events is reversed,” he points out in his appeal. And he insists the hiring criteria were political in nature and that the court “embellished” the reality.
What affects most is what happens closer. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.
subscribe to
The “factual and legal statements that do not comply with the applicable legislation”, in addition to what the prosecutor sees as a failure to evaluate a report and various statements, Anti-Corruption calls for the trial to be set aside and repeated with another court.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits