There will be a trial as scheduled and it will not be postponed. The first section of the Seville court refused this Tuesday to suspend the trial brought against the former general director of Labor and Social Security of the Daniel Alberto Rivera Council and former CCOO trade unionist for alleged crimes of prevarication and embezzlement in the more than 9.76 million euros granted by the Government of Andalusia outside the “legal procedure”, for the income insurance policies of Andalusian workers of the Fertiberia company included in the employment regulation files (ERE) undertaken by such entity.
During the first session of the trial, devoted to preliminary questions, the defenses of the two accused asked to suspend the hearing until the new sentences that the first section of the Court must pronounce, at the request of the Court, are weighed on the table. . Constitutional Court (TC), on the cause of the financing mechanism or “specific procedure” orchestrated to channel funds from the Junta de Andalucía to cover the Fraudulent ERA and arbitrary help without advertising.
This, after the Constitutional Court partially assessed the protection appeals of the former socialist presidents of the Board of Directors of Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñánamong other accused in this “political” or central piece of the macro-plot, by overturning the convictions imposed on them by the first section of the court and ratified by the Supreme Court; and order the said provincial body to issue new sentences incorporating the new criteria introduced in this area by the TC.
Silvia López, lawyer for Daniel Alberto Rivera, highlighted the “possible influence” with regard to the new sentences that the First Section of the Court must pronounce on said trunk or main piece of this macro-case, which led it to demand at least the suspension of the hearing until such new resolutions are formalized.
The defense of the accused Juan Antonio FG, former Secretary of Organization, Finance and Communication of the Federation of Industries, Textiles, Chemistry and Related Industries of CCOO; He also considered that the decision of the Constitutional Court would be “of real and direct application” in this case, similarly demanding the suspension of the trial so that there could be full “guarantees” for the accused.
But the court did not grant this request to suspend the trial until the new decisions relating to the “specific procedure” of regional financing of irregular EREs and arbitrary aid to businesses were weighed, explaining that “the implementation implementation” of the said financing system “This is not the object” pursued during this hearing.
The court declared that no need to “wait” to the new convictions, for which the first section itself constituted an “enlarged” chamber of five judges, including the two judges still active from the court which issued the initial resolution; ensure that the “pronouncements” of the Constitution will be “evaluated during the trial”, thus “no rights” of the accused are violated.
Furthermore, the First Section determined that Justice dictates that “the scope of the resolutions will be individual for the appellant in question”, establishing that “there is no obstacle” to continue with the trial and that it is not necessary to “wait” for the pronouncement of the new sentences of the essence of the “specific procedure” by this same section of the Court of Seville.
The First Section also rejected previous questions raised by Rivera’s defense regarding a possible violation of the principle ‘non bis in idem’, which prevents the criminal sanction of the same subject with regard to the same fact or behavior already judged; and “differential treatment”.
Some time ago, let us recall, Rivera’s lawyer, Silvia López, had deplored during the trial of another distinct part of the ERA that, after its exclusion from the main or “political” part of the “procedure specific” financing of the ERE, Daniel Alberto Rivera faces his accusation in certain 50 separate pieces corresponding to the aid in question financed under the said financing mechanism, with requests for a prison sentence of six years on average, which are added to certain requests for sentences which reach around 300 years in prison.
In his previous questions, Rivera’s lawyer delved into this same aspect, warning that his client is undergoing “differentiated and totally disproportionate treatment” because other defendants in this macro-plot “the doctrine of prosecution of the crime is applied to them” risks a single sentence for this case, while this former Director General of Labor has “an indeterminate number of legal proceedings” before him.
Furthermore, the defense lawyer argued that in this Fertiberia aid case, the direct “acquittal” of Daniel Alberto Rivera, because it appears for the payments formalized during his mandate as Director General of Labor and the facts are thus marked by the same “identity” in relation to the cause of the “specific procedure”, whose actions were rejected at the respect of Rivera.
But the court rejected these preliminary questions, explaining that the exclusion of Rivera from the aforementioned main element of the ERA or the “specific procedure” of financing “did not condition his situation” in relation to other facts which could be attributed to it, because the different parts of this macrocause focus on “concrete facts” of which Related persons must respond, including “public officials”.
Thus, the magistrates defended that Rivera appears in this case not because of the “financing system”, but because of his role “in managing the delivery” of public money, that is to say for the payments he formalized as Director of Labor.
The court also maintained that dividing the case into several parts “does not affect the right of defense” of the accused, specifying that in Rivera’s case, although he faces multiple proceedings, in the phases of execution of the sentence in a conviction Part of the sentence may be “reduced” compared to the “previous” conviction.
In its indictment, the prosecution describes the facts as an alleged continuous offense of prevarication in competition with a continuous offense of embezzlement against the accused, a former CCOOO trade unionist; and of the same nature but without continuing character with regard to the former Director General of Labor Daniel Alberto Rivera, claiming for the first time seven years in prison, the same period of special ban and 17 years of absolute ban; and for Rivera five years in prison, the same period of special ban and 12 years of absolute ban.
