The president of Cepyme, Gerardo Cuerva, achieves an argument in his favor in the battle that faces the leader of CEOE, Antonio Garamendi. This Tuesday, during the celebration of the Executive Committee of the Employers of Small and Medium Enterprises, he has intervened, president of the Constitutional Court and Professor of Labor Law and Social Security. He has done so to defend a legal report that has prepared and to which the country has had access, in which he defends the legality and need for the statutory modification that recently eliminated the delegated vote (by which a single voter could deposit the vote of several people at the same time) in Cepyme and that has opened a schism in the organization. The majority of the Executive Committee asks Cuerva to reverse the change and even threatens him with judicial actions, all at the gates of a high voltage electoral process. Cuerva has announced his intention to present himself again, against Garamendi’s wishes, which will defend an alternative candidacy.
The request of critics with Cuerva was completed in a letter sent to the direction of Cepyme. The signatories required the “immediate withdrawal of the reform of the Internal Regime Regulation approved illegally”, and announced that, if they were not carried out, the managers reserve “the corresponding legal actions in protection of the rights of the members of Cepyme, including the request for a precautionary measure for the immediate suspension of the aforementioned agreement.” The key to this reform is the elimination of the delegated vote, whereby a voter can give in his participation to another person. The current Directorate of Cepyme rejects this approach: they believe that the suppression of the thin vote democratizes the organization.
This is an argument shared by Casas, president of the Constitutional Court: “The prohibition of the exercise of the right to vote for representation is a requirement of democratic voting, so it is a late achievement its incorporation into the internal regulation of Cepyme.” The magistrate defends that “the freedom of vote is an inexcusable guarantee of the internal structure and democratic functioning of the business associations, which requires article 7 of the Spanish Constitution, a requirement that no formula of the self -regulating, statutory or regulatory regulations is not met.”
That is, according to its interpretation, the regulations before the statutory change does not guarantee democracy in the organization: “The elective provision regime of the position of Cepyme President, Cepyme, […] It was not adjusted, in its prior version of this reform, in democratic principles, by allowing each voter to vote on behalf of another or other voters, belonging these or not to their same organization or entity, and without limit in the number of representations, […] with serious risk of alteration of the real result of the elections ”.
In the 15 -page report and requested by the General Secretariat of Cepyme, Casas underlines the difference between the previous Electoral Standards of Cepyme and those of the other sister employer organizations, such as CEOE and ATA (of self -employed). He does it by a report of the Presidency, which “focuses on the imminent elections, and explains the distortions that in the freedom of vote and in the electoral results can cause the internal, statutory and regulatory electoral standards, of Cepyme, which, unlike those of CEOE or ATA, allow an unlimited vote delegation and the consequent accumulation of votes in a single person”. “The correction of this anomalous regulatory regulation explains its proposals to modify said internal regulatory regulation,” adds Casas.
“The personal vote in electoral processes is the general rule in democracy. The constitutional jurisprudence has been pointing out that the right to vote is endowed with inscindible guarantees, among which is its personal and undelegable character […] ”, Insists. In his opinion, the reforms of the delegated vote were “obliged to adapt their norms of organization and functioning to the Constitution, to the Law, and to the Regulation on Deposit of the Statutes of Business Organizations.”
Legality of change
Beyond the need or convenience of the statutory change, Casas also values the validity of the statutory change, questioned by the majority of the Executive Committee. “There is no minor asomo of statutory illegality in the agreement of the Board of Directors of Cepyme, of February 28, 2025, to approve the modification of articles 13 and 26 of the Internal Regime Regulation in the terms proposed by its president, statutoryly empowered for this, despite the proposal of regulatory non -modification of the Executive Committee,” Casas reflects in the conclusions of the report. The lawyer is from the State Council.
Last week another legal report transcended, in charge of the Ceypme Directorate and, which also defended the legality of change.
Then you can read the full report of the President of the Constitutional Court:
