The Seville audience throws a pulse to the constitutional in its boycott at the ERE ruling | Spain

The rebellion of the five magistrates of the audience of Seville who have avoided at the moment executing the sentences of the Constitutional Court About him ERE case And they plan to resort to the Court of Justice of the European Union (TJUE) yesterday added one more step. The five judges estimate that the Constitutional could have violated European law with the sentence that acquits the crime of embezzlement to former Andalusian president José Antonio Griñán, among others, and prepares an appeal to European justice. The Constitutional claimed the providence where they raise this circumstance to study it, and Sevillian judges yesterday demanded the Court of Guarantees to clarify the object of their request. “The Court, through the Secretary of Justice of the Plenary case of the ERE of Andalusia. This petition was carried out to officially have a document that was public, in order to deliberate it in the plenary, ”the Constitutional replied through a statement. E andl Progressive and majority sector of this court plans to prevent the appeal of the Seville Court before the European Justice, for estimating it contrary to articles 4 and 92 of the Organic Law of the Court of Guarantees, which determines the primacy of their resolutions, establishing that they cannot be reviewed by any ordinary court.

Constitutionalist experts consulted by the country do not see a tour of the Sevillian audience initiative. “It would be very suggestive to know the criteria of the European Court to add opinions to the ERE caseas a jurist would be delighted, but procedurally Spanish law does not allow it. The positive right is what it is, there is no imaginative engineering. The supreme interpreter is the Constitutional Court, which can declare void any resolution of ordinary justice, ”recalls Miguel Revenga, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Cádiz.

If in 2019 the Seville audience condemned the 19 former high positions of the Andalusian Board in the political piece of the ERE case; In 2022 the Supreme confirmed his thesis with another conviction; And last year the Constitutional reduced the convictions substantially and ordered the Sevillian audience to issue new sentences to adapt them to their criteria. The Sevillian judges released politicians in prison, but left the new sentences to adapt to the Constitutional.

Now, eight months later, the five magistrates have rebelled after collecting the PP glove, a particular accusation in the case, which asked the hearing to present a preliminary ruling before the Court based in Luxembourg. The judges consider that the Constitutional overreach in their sentences in invading its jurisdiction and that of the Supreme Court, in addition to unprotected public assets and « reduce the confidence of the company in the honest management of public funds. » In parallel, the audience loads against the Guarantee Body for contravening the Treaty of Operation of the European Union on the fight against fraud and the illegal activity that affects the financial interests of the Union.

« The hearing approach is very surprising and causes me perplexity. The preliminary rul Body of Guarantees and former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights. « It is a matter (the ERE case) already judged and the Organic Law of the Constitutional establishes that no court may re -prosecute something tried by this court, ”adds López Guerra.

The decision of the Sevillian magistrates coincides in time with a consultation elevated by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) to the TJUE because it considers that a constitutional judgment on a business award can contradict the European doctrine. The judges of the Madrid Superior Court have attended that of Luxembourg to clarify whether they are obliged to comply with the constitutional judgment. The decision has had two favorable votes and the discrepant vote of the president of the Chamber – which is also the TSJM himself -, Celso Rodríguez Padrón, who estimates that it is impossible to avoid the criteria of the Constitutional, a court that has also requested the resolution of the TSJM.

Padrón points out that “the insistence with which the maximum interpreter of the Constitution has established in these resolutions the framework of the courts of justice can only be added with the mandate contained in article 5.1 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which attributes to the constitutional jurisprudence a truly binding character on which the laws and regulations the jurisdictional bodies must be interpreted and applied. The magistrate emphasizes that « it is not about denying the effect of primacy of community law », which would mean « a recklessness » and « it is not about denying the abstract possibility of promoting a preliminary ruling. » What happens, « is that » in the face of such a repeated and constant succession of sentences that have defined, limited, repeated and developed the framework- conceptual and procedural- in which they can move in this field of the courts that know the nullity actions of arbitration awards, I do not consider the approach of this prejudicial issue.  » And later, he adds that « in the present case, the clear pronouncement already made by our Constitutional Court of the sentence granted by the amparo to the commercial entity Auro New Transport Concept, deactivates the need to promote the preliminary ruling for the resolution of the litigation, and therefore it becomes an inadmissible procedure. » Padrón cites the « warning » that the Guarantees Body addressed to ordinary courts in several sentences – among them 146/2024 – in the sense that they do not have « the right to raise a ‘reasoned discrepancy’ in relation to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, stop applying it ‘because it does not seem adequate. » Well on the contrary – he adds the text – « there is a manifest duty to comply with it. »