The Provincial Court of Las Palmas has imposed a fine of 1,000 euros on the former president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, considering that he acted with “proven bad faith” by trying to remove the magistrate who is to judge him from the case for a crime of malfeasance in the seizure of the Montaña Roja desalination plant.
In a very harsh order issued by the First Section, the magistrates reject the challenge presented by San Ginés and conclude that what he intended with this “interested action” was “to remove a judge who is uncomfortable for him from a matter”. “For this reason, he questions her way of proceeding, now trying to disguise this vain and failed attempt with an unsustainable argument, both from a factual and legal point of view,” the order adds, which describes his accusations against the magistrate as “excessive” and “unjustified.”
The trial for the seizure of the desalination plant began almost a year ago, in November 2020, but it was suspended after the first day, at the request of Pedro San Ginés' defense. At that time, when a day of hearing had already been held before the head of the Criminal Court Number 3 of Arrecife, and after she did not uphold his preliminary issues, San Ginés' lawyer alleged that that was not the competent body to judge the case, arguing that due to the penalty requested, it should have been referred to the Court.
Despite the untimely nature of that allegation, the doubts that he managed to raise led the judge to stop the trial, after Pedro San Ginés' lawyer even suggested that he could report her for malfeasance if she continued. However, the Court later confirmed that it was she who should have continued the trial and returned the proceedings to her to set a new date. Then, the former president's defense again tried to remove her by presenting this challenge that has now been rejected, in an order that also imposes the payment of a fine for his “clear and manifest bad faith.”
“Excessive accusations devoid of all rigor”
“The grounds for challenge put forward lack any foundation. What is alleged by the procedural party that raises it seeks to create an apparent situation that is not real, in order to imply an animosity of the magistrate with said party, with a commitment to her objectivity, which in no way can even be glimpsed,” the Court has responded.
In his writing, San Ginés' defense went so far as to speak of “abuse”, “de facto” and “chained succession of resolutions contrary to the law” by Judge María Luisa Moreno Vera, but the First Section concludes that he has not “justified” any of his serious accusations.
“The work of someone who has simply limited herself to acting objectively and impartially has been questioned without further ado, casting doubt on her legal work with excessive accusations devoid of all rigor and of that minimal and necessary justification,” the order warns, thus arguing the need not only to reject the challenge, but also to sanction that “capricious approach” to try to remove that magistrate.
In essence, San Ginés' main criticism focused on the fact that the judge had accepted to hold the trial only with the popular accusation, exercised by the former councilors of Podemos in the Cabildo, also questioning the legitimacy of their appearance. That was what he raised again in the preliminary issues at the beginning of the hearing, alleging that it should not be held, although that same argument had already been rejected previously by the Prosecutor's Office itself and by all the judicial instances that had dismissed his previous appeals.
When the magistrate also rejected his request, the trial continued without San Ginés' lawyer raising any question about who had the competence to hold it. However, the next day, after that first day in which the three defendants came to testify -with important contradictions between the statement of Pedro San Ginés himself and that of the then secretary of the Corporation, Francisco Perdomo-, it was when he asked to stop the hearing and that the proceedings be sent to the Provincial Court, alleging that that judge was not competent. And when the Court itself returned the case to the Court, San Ginés filed this challenge against the magistrate, which was opposed by both the Prosecutor's Office and the popular accusation.
“Unjustified”, “unfounded” and “dilatory”
“It can only be concluded that in the present case there is no basis whatsoever to doubt the impartiality of the magistrate in question, nor can that unjustified and unfounded professional suspicion that has unsuccessfully been tried to assert be accepted,” the Court maintains in this latest order.
In this regard, it recalls that any party to a proceeding “may discuss as many issues as it deems appropriate”, such as the “appearance of a procedural party, objective competence for the trial of the case and any other”, but insists that “from what is stated in his writing it does not follow irregular judicial action and even less so an action devoid of legal foundation and aimed without further ado at undermining or breaking the legitimate interests of said procedural party.”
In addition, it cites jurisprudence to point out that a “manifestly unfounded” challenge also implies “an evident infringement of the duty to act with probity in the process, without formulating dilatory incidents”, since all parties have the “obligation to collaborate in the proper administration of justice.”
Thus, in an order against which no appeal is possible, except in relation to the fine, the Court rejects the challenge and orders “to continue with the trial and resolution of the procedure”, which is still waiting to set a new date, after having been delayed almost another year due to the various appeals and incidents presented by San Ginés.
