The former president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán, has announced to the Hearing of Seville his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment of the piece's political 'case ERE' —which led him to a sentence of six years in jail for embezzlement and malfeasance continued— for a violation of law, error in fact or lack of clarity, among other reasons.
The sentence was considered to Griñán and his predecessor, Manuel Chaves, “fully aware” of the illegality of the decisions taken on the merits of the ERE. To Griñán he had been accused that as exconsejero of Economics and Finance ignore the alerts on irregularities of the General Intervention, the former president said he did not have never received. In a brief filed Wednesday before the Hearing, the attorney Griñán, the exfiscal José María Calero believes that the sentence is "not adjusted to the law and contrary to the interests" of the exdirigente andalusian.
The appeal that Griñán will present before the high court between February and march, considered that there was a "violation of law, error in fact derived from documents contained in the cause, breach-of-way for lack of clarity, contradiction in the facts and violation of constitutional precept," according to its writing. That is to say, the president considers that the facts proven do not have legal reserves as criminal acts, that there are documents that refute this, that the sentence has severe errors of wording that the discredit and which is alleged to have violated fundamental rights, such as their presumption of innocence.
in Addition, the president considers that there were well-appreciated the evidence based on the communication from the comptroller general of the Board in 2012 on "the absence of impairment of funds", the report of the Advisory Council on the draft Budget law and the report of the Accounts Chamber of Control of aid between 2001 and 2010. In total, Griñán estimated that the court valued the wrong way a dozen tests between reports, responses to parliamentary and communications.
In parallel to the error of the evaluation of the evidence, the former president based his appeal for lack of clarity in the findings of fact, "manifest contradiction" and to not respect his presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, as established in the law.
After the presentation of the writings of the defenses, now the Hearing of Seville will issue a decree in which he takes the resources and all the requested documents for review, and subsequently the Supreme court sited the defences to bring their resources in a period of between 15 and 40 days.Updated Date: 10 January 2020, 05:00