Alleges that the magistrate is “an instrument” of the PSOE and recalls that it was the instructor of the case

A judge akin to Dolores Delgado to write the next sentence of the ‘Gürtel’

The judge Andreu was drawn up by order of the court which rejects apartarle of the ‘Gürtel’

The National court condemns Barcenas to 33 years for money laundering and the PP for the benefit of Gürtel

“The apparent closeness of the judge Andreu Merelles to the PSOE deprives him of the appearance of impartiality that must project a judge with regard to the object of the procedure is going to prosecute”. So goes the counsel of the PP, Jesus Santos, the Second Section of the Sala de lo Penal of the Audiencia Nacional, in charge of judging the plot of corruption linked to the partido Popular (Popular Party, known as a case Gürtel.

In two separate writings of 24 pages, to those who had access to this journal, the advocate asks this court that aside the magistrate Fernando Andreu of the court that will judge the illegal financing of the PP -piece known as the Papers of Barcenas-, as well as who will execute the judgement of the first part already judged the case Gürtel -piece Time I 1999-2005 – after the Tribubal Supreme resolve the appeal in cassation filed by the convicted persons. Precisely, Andreu, who was appointed as a member of the court of Gürtel, November 27, will be the rapporteur (editor) of the sentences.

In his arguments, the counsel of the PP makes it clear to the Room that his request for recusal is not “a reproach” to the “political orientation” of the magistrate, though he warns of “their lack of suitability to form part of the trial court in a criminal proceeding in which the Popular Party has been named as a responsible civil”.

that Said, the political party that presides over Paul Married denouncing “the existence of a clear relationship and nearness of the judge with the PSOE, the main political opponent of the PP, as well as with some of its members”. In this sense, it points to the minister of Justice, Dolores Delgado, and former investigating judge of the case Gürtel, Baltasar Garzón.

The legal services of the Popular Party based his incident of disqualification in four specific facts to allege that Fernando Andreu is “an effective instrument of political action of the socialist party” in this procedure. First, the proposal of the minister Slim that the judge occupied the post of secretary of State for Justice in the Government of Pedro Sanchez. It is “obvious, uncontroversial and greatly enlightening,” the PP.

Second, the fact that the PSOE proposed to Andreu as a candidate for member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ). In this case, the legal representation of the popular remember that the Criminal division of the Audience away from the case Gürtel, at the request of the accusations, judges that were members of the CGPJ on the proposal of the PP. In particular, Juan Pablo González, Concepción Espejel and Enrique López, questioning his impartiality.

Third, the “close and intimate friendship” that, allegedly, exists between Andreu, Thin, and Garzón, sentenced to 11 years of disqualification for an offence of trespass committed in the bosom of this case, after having authorized wiretaps between the investigated and his lawyers. “The three shared a long stage in the National Audience,” recalls the lawyer of the PP, who takes a position of support adopted by Andreu in relation to criminal conduct on the part of Garzón, “committed precisely in the case in which the challenged has been proposed as a speaker”.

The arguments put forward by the PP also include the judge Andreu “has been entrusted with the function instructor” in the case Gürtel on at least two occasions. The advocate of this political formation points to the existence of up to 15 resolutions -between cars and orders – in July of 2012 and August of 2013, to do functions of a substitute that was at that time instructor of the case, Pablo Ruz.

Precisely, the lawyers of the former treasurer of the PP, Luis Barcenas, also called for the disqualification of Andreu for this reason, claiming that it intervened “in a timely manner, but with evident knowledge of the statement”, giving different resolutions.

The magistrate “may not engage in the same procedure as instructor for after to become part of the organ of prosecution,” concludes the PP.

According to the criteria of

Learn more