The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has sent an appeal before the First Section of the Provincial Court of Valencia in which it demands the repetition of the trial of the Alquería case and in which it also reproaches the court for admitting that a public company (Imelsa, from the Diputación de Valencia) could contract for ideological affinity and ignoring legal principles.
Among those acquitted in this process is the former president of the Valencia Provincial Council with the PSPV-PSOE and current mayor of Ontinyent (now independent), Jorge Rodríguez. Both the acquittal and the prosecutor’s appeal come at a time when both the PSPV and the PP are trying to curry favor with Rodríguez’s party to govern the Valencia Provincial Council.
The sentence, known on May 30, acquitted all the defendants, directors of the public company Imelsa or Rodríguez collaborators of the crimes of embezzlement, prevarication and falsehood for which the prosecutor claimed sentences of between 6 and 8 years in prison. .
In a letter of more than 60 pages, to which EFE has had access, the prosecutor argues that the sentence contains statements that “have no legal basis and contradict essential rules aimed at preventing precisely what the sentence considers valid.”
The court considered that it was not possible to prove during the trial that the new structure designed by the leaders of the PSPV and Compromís for the public company Imelsa in 2015 “obeyed the need or desire to hire certain people, as a way of paying favors or grant prebends”.
On the contrary, the prosecutor draws attention to statements contained in the sentence that “encourage a conception of the public company that, in the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office, is incompatible with the Constitution and the Basic Statute of Public Employment.”
In this sense, it insists that admitting that “the personnel hired in a public company is selected by political ideology of the parties that in this case form the Government of the Provincial Council is contrary to the legal requirements to precisely avoid political clientelism in the companies public”.
In this context, the prosecutor cites the Autonomous Civil Service Law to insist that the appointments “must be motivated, justifying that the person appointed meets the requirements set out in the call and that he is the right candidate for the position.”
He also cites a specific paragraph of the sentence: “Imelsa was given a new structure that, with more or less success, we are not in a position to assess, it was considered more effective for the fulfillment of social purposes; and people were sought ( …) that could deserve the trust of the management team (…) because, ultimately, it was about developing actions that have a markedly political nature”, as reflected in the ruling.
And he adds in this regard that “the chronology is inverse, the people chosen by the politicians attached to the parties that governed the county were hired and later the structure that was intended to be implemented was explained (to the board of directors).
It also stresses that all those hired were “political and none technical”, that “none had professional qualifications or experience in running a company, that this is supposedly what their work was about” and denounces the omission of an assessment regarding the report presented by the State comptroller and other material that “openly contradicts the grounds of the sentence”.
For all these reasons, the prosecutor requests that the sentence be revoked and that the trial be repeated by another court.
