The one who was head of accounting regulations of the Bank of Spain for many years, Jorge Perez Ramirezwas the subject of a Unfair dismissal in 2019, according to a sentence issued on July 7 and notified yesterday by Judge María del Carmen Rodrigo Sáiz, magistrate-judge of the Social Court number 41 of Madrid.
One of the exceptional dismissals in the labor history of the Bank of Spain has resulted in a sentence – in the absence of knowing if it will be appealed before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid – after more than two and a half years that practically comes to consider it null dismissal, Although he leans towards his impropriety due to lack of further evidence, which implies the reinstatement of Pérez Ramírez to the institution with the payment of wages accrued since July 2019 (360,000 euros) or, if that reinstatement is rejected, payment of compensation of 418,215.06 euros. Pérez Ramírez joined the Bank of Spain in 1986.
The ruling discredits one of the main reasons put forward by the Bank of Spain for the dismissal: “The data [por los que se acusa al ejecutivo] that appear in the emails are secret, confidential or reserved since they appear in the public accounting accounts of banks and credit institutions and savings banks. According to the hierarchical superior [Daniel Pérez Cid], the plaintiff has never handled secret or reserved information nor has he attended meetings in which reports with these characteristics have been exposed. The documents that appear in the investigated emails do not have the review of secrets, confidential or reserved or for exclusively internal use and are public and well-known knowledge & rdquor ;.
What do you mean by reviewed emails?
The ruling explains that as a result of the publication on social networks of the appointment of a civil servant to replace the then director general of supervision, the Bank of Spain launched control of emails by Perez Ramirez. The ruling indicates that the email in which the appointment was discussed had been sent to 500 people and that, in addition, an official statement was made about it.
However, this was used to open an investigation – between November 2018 and July 2019 – against the former head of accounting regulations and hired the analysis firm Deloitte –part of the Deloitte audit group, which in turn sat on the bench in Bankia’s oral proceedings– to examine 47,000 emails. The trail of incoming and outgoing mail was followed, among others, by the president of the Accounting and Audit Institute (ICAC), later appointed vice president of the National Securities Market Commission (CNMV), Ana Martinez Pinaand the former Director General of Regulation and President of the Spanish Banking Association (AEB), Jose Maria Roldan. Of that amount, 2,000 emails were deposited by Deloitte before a notary so that an expert from the company could submit them for analysis.
According to the sentence, “the Bank of Spain has not conducted itself according to the protocols to clarify a filtrationsince the analysis must serve exclusively to investigate and verify the leak, without any other reason having been glimpsed to go back years and review 47,000 emails & rdquor ;.
That retroactive search may have an explanation. And it is the dissidence that Pérez Ramírez maintained with the policy of the Bank of Spain in the crisis of Bankia and savings banks from Great Recession of 2008.
Pérez Ramírez resigned in 2015 after refusing to sign the attacks, as suggested by the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB), chaired by the deputy governor of the Bank of Spain, Fernando Restoyagainst the first two reports – December 4, 2014 – of the judicial experts Víctor Sánchez and Antonio Busquets in which it was argued that the financial statements of BFA-Bankia did not reflect the true image of the entity.
The former head of the accounting regulations division was proposed to testify as a witness for the popular accusation of the Inter-Union Confederation of Credit (CIC) in the oral trial of the Bankia case. The fourth criminal section of the National High Court admitted his statement on June 7, 2018. He was summoned for May 6, 2019.
In his appearance, the witness explained: “What cannot be is that a company that looks like gold is shown and is sold at the price of copper. This did not hold. According to the financial information in the brochure, the entity was being given away & rdquor ;.
The sentence flirts with the annulment of the dismissal (for violation of fundamental rights) but considers that the statement in the Bankia trial is not a well-founded indication of this since, “in addition to the formal summons [como testigo en el juicio] It does not occur but in the middle of the sanctioning file & rdquor ;.
However, in the oral trial, the one who was the general director of supervision of the bank, Aristobulus of John, gave a statement and provided an indication. Antonio Bernal, attorney for the plaintiff, asked him:
-You have spoken with the governor, Mr. Pablo Hernández de Cos about professional issues.
-Yes that’s how it is. We talked about supervision, which is my specialty. I recommended that he should appoint an independent adviser, from the Bank of Spain but independent from the supervision area. And I gave him three names: Pablo Pérez, who I believe is in Basel; Daniel Pérez Cid and Jorge Pérez Ramírez.
What did the governor tell you?
-That Jorge Pérez Ramírez was a very good professional, but after Bankia [su declaración] it couldn’t be.
The proven facts of the ruling were already part of a sentence according to which the magistrate considered that the demand had expired, an argument that the Bank of Spain presented. Although an appeal by Pérez Ramírez before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid was dismissed, a new appeal before the Supreme Court managed to prove, last June, that the demand had not expired.
The Bank of Spain exerted pressure on the court of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court to speed up its sentence and, in addition, to submit it to the plenary session of the Chamber. In its ruling of May 19, 2022, the Chamber responded emphatically (point five) about the difficulties posed by a “scarce workforce & rdquor; and that there were situations with “worse effects & rdquor; (pensioners who are pending recognition of their benefit, salaries charged to the State…”). And in relation to the plenary session required, the ruling states that “it is a measure that is not available to the parties, but rather the Presidency calls the plenary session”.
Related news
When the judge’s sentence was approaching, always bearing in mind that the proven facts were already known, the Bank of Spain, fearful of the outcome, sent a letter to the judge in which it said: “It is not appropriate to apply the doctrine of that Excellency Living room [la de lo Social del Tribunal Supremo]…” And he urged the judge to raise, before resolving the sentence, raise the question of unconstitutionality of the resolution of the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court.
The judge issued an order on July 1 last: “It is not appropriate to promote a question of unconstitutionality & mldr; It does not contain any content that could be mentioned as unconstitutionality & rdquor ;. What was feared by the Bank of Spain came on July 7 in the sentence notified yesterday: unfair dismissal. The Bank of Spain can appeal within five days by appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.