Spanish Anti-Corruption Prosecutors Reject Referencing ERE Case to European Justice
The Public Prosecutor's Office aligns with the Supreme Court's directive in the controversial ERE corruption case, undermining local prosecutors' recommendations.
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office has intervened in the ongoing ERE corruption case in Spain, asserting that the Provincial Court of Seville should not refer substantial questions regarding the case to the European Court of Justice.
This announcement follows an initiative from the Seville court to elevate a prejudicial question concerning the interpretation of law in light of recent rulings from Spain’s Constitutional Court, which have annulled some sentences related to the case.
On April 1, 2025, the Anti-Corruption prosecutors of Seville filed a memorandum in response to the Seville court's proposal.
The document, while reiterating a stance against making a referral to Luxembourg, indicates it reflects the directives received from the Office of the Attorney General of Spain, notably quoting instructions from Angeles Sánchez Conde, the Deputy Attorney General, and acknowledging the lead of Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz.
The memorandum emphasizes that the Constitutional Court did not adopt an alternative interpretation regarding prevarication and misappropriation convictions related to several members of the now-defunct Andalusian regional government, including former Presidents Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán. It outlines various legal reasons why asking the European Court to review the decisions would be inadvisable.
The document highlights an internal norm, instruction number 1/2016, which establishes that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court's prosecutors to determine the institutional position on prejudicial questions.
Consequently, the Seville prosecutors had to present a position contravening their own prior conclusions due to operational directives from their superiors.
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's submission is not binding; therefore, the Seville court retains the option to pursue the matter with the European Court of Justice.
However, the President of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Gómez-Pumpido, indicated that he would leverage legal provisions to reinforce adherence to the court’s own decisions.
The full Constitutional Court is scheduled to deliberate on the prejudicial question on April 8, 2025, amidst pressures intensifying over judicial authority and integrity.
Judges in Seville had previously indicated a ten-day timeframe for the involved parties—prosecution, accusations, and defense—to express their views regarding making a request to the European Court concerning the Constitutional Court's decisions, emphasizing concerns about the limits of judicial control.
The Provincial Court of Seville expressed its stance that the resolutions from the Constitutional Court may breach European Law and undermine principles designed to combat fraud and corruption.
In a contrasting interpretation, the Anti-Corruption prosecutors argue that the doubts raised by the Seville judges could be resolved domestically without needing to invoke European jurisdiction.
The ongoing internal divisions within the Spanish judiciary reflect broader implications for the rule of law, with tensions surrounding the efficacy of judicial oversight in high-profile corruption cases, particularly in a context that has already seen accusations of political manipulation of the judicial system.
Recent actions by progressive judges within the Constitutional Court, who annulled previous sentences alleging violations of legal security and the presumption of innocence, have heightened scrutiny regarding the integrity of judicial procedures.
The Prosecutor's stance aligns with safeguarding judicial interpretations and compliance with legal standards, reinforcing its framework against any perception of overreach by the Constitutional Court.
The pushback from the Anti-Corruption unit against seeking European judicial review exemplifies the complexities faced by legal authorities in navigating both domestic and supranational legal landscapes, as well as the ongoing ramifications for Spanish governance and legal accountability.
This announcement follows an initiative from the Seville court to elevate a prejudicial question concerning the interpretation of law in light of recent rulings from Spain’s Constitutional Court, which have annulled some sentences related to the case.
On April 1, 2025, the Anti-Corruption prosecutors of Seville filed a memorandum in response to the Seville court's proposal.
The document, while reiterating a stance against making a referral to Luxembourg, indicates it reflects the directives received from the Office of the Attorney General of Spain, notably quoting instructions from Angeles Sánchez Conde, the Deputy Attorney General, and acknowledging the lead of Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz.
The memorandum emphasizes that the Constitutional Court did not adopt an alternative interpretation regarding prevarication and misappropriation convictions related to several members of the now-defunct Andalusian regional government, including former Presidents Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán. It outlines various legal reasons why asking the European Court to review the decisions would be inadvisable.
The document highlights an internal norm, instruction number 1/2016, which establishes that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court's prosecutors to determine the institutional position on prejudicial questions.
Consequently, the Seville prosecutors had to present a position contravening their own prior conclusions due to operational directives from their superiors.
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's submission is not binding; therefore, the Seville court retains the option to pursue the matter with the European Court of Justice.
However, the President of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Gómez-Pumpido, indicated that he would leverage legal provisions to reinforce adherence to the court’s own decisions.
The full Constitutional Court is scheduled to deliberate on the prejudicial question on April 8, 2025, amidst pressures intensifying over judicial authority and integrity.
Judges in Seville had previously indicated a ten-day timeframe for the involved parties—prosecution, accusations, and defense—to express their views regarding making a request to the European Court concerning the Constitutional Court's decisions, emphasizing concerns about the limits of judicial control.
The Provincial Court of Seville expressed its stance that the resolutions from the Constitutional Court may breach European Law and undermine principles designed to combat fraud and corruption.
In a contrasting interpretation, the Anti-Corruption prosecutors argue that the doubts raised by the Seville judges could be resolved domestically without needing to invoke European jurisdiction.
The ongoing internal divisions within the Spanish judiciary reflect broader implications for the rule of law, with tensions surrounding the efficacy of judicial oversight in high-profile corruption cases, particularly in a context that has already seen accusations of political manipulation of the judicial system.
Recent actions by progressive judges within the Constitutional Court, who annulled previous sentences alleging violations of legal security and the presumption of innocence, have heightened scrutiny regarding the integrity of judicial procedures.
The Prosecutor's stance aligns with safeguarding judicial interpretations and compliance with legal standards, reinforcing its framework against any perception of overreach by the Constitutional Court.
The pushback from the Anti-Corruption unit against seeking European judicial review exemplifies the complexities faced by legal authorities in navigating both domestic and supranational legal landscapes, as well as the ongoing ramifications for Spanish governance and legal accountability.
Translation:
•
Translated by AI
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
