The Haría government group has just suffered its second judicial setback in the same week in the La Cueva lawsuit, which has also resulted in a new conviction for the City Council to pay costs. In an order dated April 27, the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 5 of Las Palmas has rejected the Consistory's request to annul the agreements it reached with the Cabildo, also reminding it that it was the "maker" and "co-author" of them.
In its resolution, the magistrate concludes that the definitive agreement approved last November did not intend to "evade the execution of the sentence" of 2015, but "just the opposite." In addition, he argues that what is now raised by the Consistory before the Court, asking to annul both the agreement signed in its day between Pedro San Ginés and Marci Acuña and the subsequent addendum, "is tantamount to saying that the Haría City Council intended to sabotage itself in order not to implement a judicial ruling that favored it," and that gave the Consistory the reason against the Cabildo under the presidency of San Ginés.
That addendum (which expressly included the compensation, which had been omitted in the first agreement under the CC government), was already negotiated with the PSOE in the Mayor's Office. And although it was the trigger for the motion of censure in Haría, it was approved thanks to the favorable vote of one of the CC councilors who remains in the new government group together with the Municipal Platform of José Torres Stinga, and thanks to the abstention of three other councilors of the nationalist party, including the current mayor. However, now they asked the Court to annul not only that addendum, but also the initial agreement signed by their party colleagues, alleging that it was intended to evade compliance with the sentence.
The judge clarifies why he did not approve the agreement
"The object of this incident has an important subjective component," emphasizes the Court, which is the one that issued the La Cueva sentence and who must ensure its execution, to avoid a "deviation of power," as he recalls in his order. In the case of the initial agreement -which was approved without reports from municipal technicians of Haría and that the auditor warned later that it was "harmful" to the City Council-, neither the Cabildo nor the Consistory, governed then by CC, presented it to the Court for approval. As for the addendum, after its signing it was raised to the Court, although it refused to approve it.
However, in this new order, the same judge clarifies that he did not reject it because he saw "an intentional will to subvert the judicial pronouncements". The reason, as he recalls again, was that he understood that "the literal tenor of the ruling" was not met, since the economic amount of the compensation was finally set, but the interests were not included either. And that, he emphasizes that "cannot be equated" to an alleged attempt to evade compliance with the ruling, as the auditor warned that it did occur with the first agreement.
In addition, the order recalls that that decision is not yet final, since it was appealed by the Cabildo, so that agreement remains in force until there is a final pronouncement. However, while this was being resolved, the current government group of the City Council opened another front directly asking that both the agreement and the addendum be annulled, which is what has just been rejected. In addition, it simultaneously requested the execution of the sentence, although that has also been rejected in another order that was known last Tuesday, and that also questions the erratic attitude of the City Council. "It goes against its own reasoning", the Court pointed out. And it is that the Consistory asked on the one hand that the agreement be annulled, indicating that this should be resolved "prior to the exact determination of the compensation amount", but at the same time asked that that figure be determined already in court.
"They are not precisely going to speed up the resolution of the conflict"
"It is understandable the urgencies of said Corporation to obtain the amounts to which it is entitled, a different question is whether the opening of multiple pieces and the interposition of a new contentious-administrative appeal that has been distributed to this Court are going to, precisely, speed up the resolution of the conflict that exists between the parties," the Court emphasized, warning that these new judicial fronts will continue to delay the payment of the money that was recognized in a sentence since 2015.
Now, both attempts by the new government group have already been rejected, also imposing the payment of costs to the City Council, although these resolutions can also be appealed. Meanwhile, what is still being decided is whether to approve the corrected agreement that was approved a few months ago. For the moment, what the Court emphasizes is that it did not "violate" the meaning of the sentence and that therefore it is not appropriate to declare its nullity.
As for the interest on the compensation, the Cabildo argues in its appeal that they were not "failed to consider" in the agreement and that they were compensated "with part of the principal, given that there was a discrepancy when setting the exact date on which the Cave, in compliance with the sentence, was made available to the City Council".
