The Supreme Court (TS) has issued an ordering procedure that brings the former president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán even closer to prison, by denying his request to suspend his imprisonment. In this way, it responds to the “request for procedural impulse” formulated by Griñán, who has raised an annulment motion before the ruling of the high court in which it endorsed the ruling in the ERE case and to which it indicates that “the proceedings are pending of the expiration of the granted term”
Anti-corruption reiterates its position and points out that Griñán has to go to jail now
Precisely, in the face of the nullity incidents raised against its own sentence, the Supreme Court states that “the nullity incident does not suspend the execution of the sentence, and must be requested in its case before the body in charge of its execution.” This is none other than the First Section of the Seville Court, which this past Tuesday denied the suspension of prison sentences, in the case of eight of the nine sentenced to prison, including Griñán himself.
In an order issued this past Tuesday, the First Section of the Court of Seville resolves the requests for suspension of the prison sentence promoted by the defenses of Griñán, the former Minister of Finance Carmen Martínez Aguayo, the former Minister of Innovation Francisco Vallejo, the former Minister of for Employment and Technological Development José Antonio Viera, also former Minister of Employment Antonio Fernández, former Deputy Minister of Employment Agustín Barberá, former director of the IDEA agency Miguel Ángel Serrano, former General Director of Labor Juan Márquez and former Vice Minister of Innovation Jesús María Rodríguez Román .
Partial clemency requests
Such requests for suspension of prison sentences were mainly based on requests for partial pardon submitted by those sentenced to the Ministry of Justice and the motions for annulment brought before the Supreme Court, which in response to its appeals against the initial conviction of the First Section of the Hearing, fully confirmed the aforementioned prison sentences except in the case of Juan Márquez, in respect of which it reduced the prison sentence of seven years and one day in prison to three years, when appreciating the analogical mitigation of repairing the damage.
Apart from reducing Juan Márquez’s prison sentence, the Supreme Court confirmed the remaining prison sentences, endorsing the six years and two days in prison imposed by the Seville Court on Griñán.
In this sense, the First Section of the Hearing admits in its pronouncement “the lack of criminal records of those convicted”, but on the other hand points out “the seriousness and length of the sentences for which they have been convicted, which prevents the suspension of the execution of the sentence in all the forms included in article 80 and following of the Penal Code, reason for which all of them have requested the suspension of the execution while the pardon is processed”.
Nothing “advises” to suspend prison sentences
“There is no circumstance that advises the suspension of the sentence for a request for pardon”, summarize the magistrates, who also point out, regarding the motion for nullity raised before the Supreme Court by the defenses, that “in no way can the presentation of the motion give result in the suspension of the execution of the custodial sentences imposed in a final sentence”, since this “would imply a breach of the precepts that regulate the suspension of the execution of the sentences and the effective fulfillment of the same”.
As the court underlines, “there is no legal support for this court to delay the execution of the sentence, while the annulment incident raised before the Supreme Court is resolved, and even less the precautionary suspension that the convicted persons intend and announce to request from the Constitutional Court ”.
As for Márquez, sentenced to three years in prison, the panel argues that “his situation is different, the sentence being three and four years less than that of the rest, which together with the lack of a criminal record and objective reasons that determined a quantitative penological reduction in the sentence handed down by the TS, are circumstances to take into account so that it proceeds, for a prudential time of one year, to the suspension of the execution of the custodial sentence while the pardon is processed.
Ten days after signing the car
Since this new order is subject to an appeal within two days, the Court finally indicates that once “this resolution is signed, the convicts are required to appear before the court within ten days, for their voluntary admission” in prison.
Previously, let’s remember, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the PP of Andalusia, the party involved in the case, had opposed the aforementioned requests for suspension of prison sentences.