He has condemned a judge from Cantabria, 10 years of disqualification for a crime of malicious prevarication. The High Court has folded the penalty imposed in 2022 by the Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria (TSJC), which ordered a five years of inactivity for the magistrate. The sanction implies the “definitive loss of the position you hold and the honors that are attached” during this decade. The judgment considers, against the Cantabrian resolution, that the judge’s proceeding was not due to an “error” but considers that he was aware of his illicit actions when he tried to harm a lawyer who complained against him with him with the advice school following his pronouncements when he exercised in 2018 in the Court of Contentious-Administrative 2 of Santander.
The opinion recalls that the process began because in December 2018 the involved required the Cantabrian City Council of Castañeda “the complete documentation accrediting the minor contracts concluded with the authors of the legal and technical reports working in the administrative file.” This demand was “outside the object” and “nothing affected the case,” according to the subsequent judicial analysis. The man “insisted on asking for what he should not ask and was aware of it,” according to the subsequent judicial positioning about his way of developing the cause. The magistrate intended to “initiate an investigation into an issue totally alien to the procedure, find out ‘why and how’ is contracted, fundamentally, the complainant lawyer”, reason for this dispute that the Supreme Court has reached because the magistrate had a “special interest in knowing the reasons and the form” of this hiring. Acayro plans to resort to this opinion before him, reports the Europa Press agency.
The Court of the case has been formed by Andrés Martínez Arrieta as president, Ana Ferrer, Vicente Magro, Antonio Del Moral and Leopoldo Puente. These last two have cast a particular vote in favor of acquittal, although they clarified that if there was really no “error”, the crime transcended the sole prevarication.
The malicose can be seen, according to the sentence, in which the judge worked in “collecting information on the justification of contracting external technicians and requiring the contribution of the minor contracts with which such contract had been carried out”, an attitude that is considered “unfair” and inadequate: “The judge’s decision cannot be sustained by any acceptable method of interpreting the law, it is not based on a reasonable foundation Different from the will of its author and, from the objective point of view, it is not covered by any interpretation of the law based on admitted interpretive canons ”. He first established that the accused “mistakenly believed in compliance with his professional obligation”, hence he imposed five years of disqualification and not 10, but the highest judicial authority of the state rebates that position because the magistrate’s movements against the complainant lawyer did not irregularities ”. They also disassemble the “wrong belief of acting in compliance with a duty” because that legality or not of the City Council contracts did not correspond to this administrative and non -criminal process.
“It was acted with full awareness of the inadmissibility of what was agreed in a procedure in which it was not necessary of any justification to do what was done. ” These reproved that the convicted person exceeded their functions to request proceedings that the parties did not claim for issues outside the case that must be “resolved.” “What was carried out was evident that it could not be done. He acted knowingly of his injustice,” they set out against Acayro, whom they accuse of being “aware that he had no competition to review that hiring.”
