The judge in the Pergola case agreed to ask the City Council to have another city lawyer issue a report on the stock offer if they felt harmed by the alleged splitting of contracts across multiple projects. In La Alcoraya, Judge María Luisa Carrascosa indicated that a report would come from the head of the Consortium’s legal services, following a request from anti-corruption prosecutors who asserted a need for clarification. Rafael Ramos, who stated he would not attend the City Council hearing because he did not feel harmed, was represented by another attorney after he had to abstain from defending the case initially. Exedil José Ramón González is among those under investigation for administrative evasion. Ultimately, the matter moved forward with the expectation that legal scrutiny would determine the validity of the concerns raised about contract structuring.
The president of the Instruction Court No. 9 of Alicante announced that within five days the City Council should appoint additional lawyers to take charge of the article and provide reasons supporting the Board’s opinion. The judge’s October 5 decision remains subject to appeal, which can be filed with the court within three days if any party wishes to challenge it.
appeal to court
Separately, the judge issued another order in which he rejected the reform objections raised by the defense of former councilman José Ramón González and by the heads of the regional services responsible for the Village Directorates who led the investigation into the two former councillors and the Infrastructure sector. Exedil Manuel Jimenez submitted his concerns directly to the court as the process progressed. The court continues its examination, and the Alicante Regional Court will assess the objection raised by the lawyers under investigation.
The judge notes that the individuals under investigation can no longer argue that they did not exist when this procedure began. There is sufficient evidence pointing to possible misconduct, and at this procedural stage there is little room for an exhaustive review of the evidentiary materials presented during the oral proceedings. The indictment outlines indications that the contracting process involved neglect in signing the contracts, the total amounts being fragmented across multiple actions, and the use of small contracts that fell within sub-threshold limits.