The budget law as the balm of fierabras that heals all the crimes of rulers. A commentary on the Constitutional Court judgments on the ERE case

Abstract

This study analyses the Constitutional Court’s judgments on the ERE case in Andalusia, triggered by an extortion complaint in 2009. It examines the facts accepted by the courts and the legal issues in ordinary and constitutional jurisdictions. The ten SSTCs uphold the convictions for prevarication and embezzlement for acts carried out in 2000 and 2001. However, the convictions for the period 2002-2009 were overturned on the basis that the including the “Programme 3.1.L, Labour Relations Administration”, and the subheading “Application 440.51, Transfers to the IFA in matters of labour relations” was sufficient to negate criminal liability. The author argues that to reach this outcome, the TC first had to contradict three previous lines of jurisprudence, and then make questionable interpretations of the criminal offences of prevarication and embezzlement. The TC also overlooked the fact that budgetary concepts cannot provide a sufficient legal ground for not applying all legislation on the processing and control of regional subsidies.