There will be no rapporteur appointed for the review of the Supreme Court penalty related to alleged fraud in Alicante’s PGOU, nor will any member of the chamber decide whether the hearing should be canceled and retried, as recommended by the Court. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office later became president of the Provincial Court. Between 2001 and 2016, he withdrew from the case for reasons of objective impartiality after previously participating in the process, which bars him from appealing. (Citation: Court records and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, attribution to official court proceedings.)
Officials suggest that the magistrate was warned of this matter. Sixteen volumes of documentation indicate at least two decisions bearing his signature that establish the procedure. (Citation: Alicante court archival records, attribution to court documents.)
Therefore Magro submitted an abstention report, only five business days after the parties were notified that objections to the sentence had been processed. Luis Alperi, a former Alicante PP mayor, and businessman Enrique Ortiz were involved in the case; both faced accusations of bribery alongside other defendants, including former councilor Sonia Castedo, who was charged with corruption crimes. (Citation: court filings and summary of charges, attribution to official records.)
On the day the case opened for alleged fraud against the PGOU, seven of the nine defendants, including Alperi, Castedo, and Ortiz, appeared in Alicante Court. Morell/EFE; Rafa Arjones. (Citation: court attending notes, attribution to courthouse photographers.)
With three appeals accepted (two convicts filed appeals as well as the Anti-Corruption office), the date set for discussion and decision was announced for February 20, and the composition of the hearing panel was disclosed. It included judges Andrés Martínez Arrieta, Antonio del Moral, Carmen Lamela, Eduardo de Porres, and Vicente Magro, this time serving as speaker. (Citation: court announcements, attribution to official court notices.)
Everything changed when Magro abstained. An order notified to the parties on a Wednesday reports that the Chief Judge of the Second Chamber, Manuel Marchena, has issued Magro’s abstention report, removed him from the case, suspended the appointed role, and left the appeal pending for a new date, hearing, and submission. (Citation: official court order, attribution to the Second Chamber’s announcements.)
Further delays
An unexpected turn will extend the final ruling in this case for months more, delaying the proceedings concerning whether Alicante’s urban planning data and related privileges were improperly handled by local politicians. Nine individuals faced corruption charges and sat in the courtroom. (Citation: court chronology and case summaries, attribution to judiciary records.)
The sentence handed down by the Alicante Court two years earlier implicated Cristina Costa, Margarita Esquiva, and Montserrat Navarro; the latter received only two fines for bribery as involved speakers: six thousand euros to Alperi for a private jet trip, and eighteen thousand euros to Ortiz for a jacket from Carolina Herrera. (Citation: sentencing records, attribution to court documents.)
Other defendants were acquitted. In addition to the former councilor, his brother and a partner, a sibling and an employee of a Alicante developer, and two other businessmen, one from Elche, were cleared of the crime. (Citation: verdict summary, attribution to official judicial resolutions.)
Requests to annul the decision and retry the case in another court were filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court Appeals, arguing several grounds of appeal and pointing to irregularities in the processing of the PGOU file. They noted that certain aspects of Article 12 were not addressed in the decision. (Citation: appeal submissions, attribution to the Supreme Court of Appeals.)
Muted compatibility
Among the points raised was that an agreement signed by Ortiz, his brother, and a co-worker accused of charges was not reflected in the verdict. The agreement, publicly discussed, involved the town hall as an entity and was accepted in exchange for sentence reductions that would avoid imprisonment; the parties later withdrew from the arrangement just before the oral hearing began. (Citation: defense filings and court discussions, attribution to official records.)
The prosecutor’s office also contends that the Alicante court’s characterization of the indictment as lacking specificity, being general and confusing, was incorrect. They argue that several observations were overlooked by the court, suggesting that the record could have been corrected by treating the writing as sound. (Citation: prosecutor’s appeal notes, attribution to court filings.)