Yes, the story goes back to the Spanish Tercios, the Spanish army unit of the House of Austria. Back in 1534, the military were forced to finance military expenses with their own pay. They took charge of the gunpowder, the armament or the necessary equipment. However, the salary was not enough for all these expenses. For this reason, the soldiers reduced the use of weapons as much as possible in situations where the objective was confused. But, of course, in wars it was different. The amount of gunpowder then used came from the King’s coffers. Hence, then, that the expression gunpowder of the King identifies the rational, austere and controlled use, and the one that is not, depending on who pays.
Now our arquebusiers of the Bank of Spain are preparing to face new expenses to finance a battle that is already, in every rule, a witch hunt aimed at purging the Bank of Spain of independent professionals, as much as it is the alleged autonomy and independence that the institution enshrines, as is the case of the entity’s former head of accounting regulations, Jorge Perez Ramirez.
So far, according to the public accounts of the entity – this will not need the shock team of the Bank of Spain to outsource it to the firm Deloitte how did you do with the 47,000 emails tracked in Pérez Ramírez’s email – 36,295.0 euros have been spent in 2019 for the trial in the social jurisdiction. And another 118,580 euros (154,875 euros) have been paid to deal with the resource presented by the defense of the former head of accounting regulations against the resolution – proven incorrect – of said court on the alleged expiration of the lawsuit against the dismissal.
The Bank of Spain hired the team of the Uria law firma decision that seemed completely logical, given that Cristina Taboadathe instructor of the file against Jorge Pérez Ramírez, arrived at the Bank of Spain -and it is not an exception- coming, precisely, from Uría.
If the hiring to track Deloitte- which is part of the audit firm that at that time, 2019, was accused in the oral trial of Bankia’s IPOabout which the technically dissenting position of one of the most important accounting authorities of the institution, Pérez Ramírez, had been sounded internally in the Bank of Spain, was a clear violation of the appearance of impartiality required in any investigation, that of Uría, although comfortable, yes, for the instructor of the file, it was a decision that was not far behind.
In light of the results obtained -unfavorable sentence-, the question for an institution that is the bible of austerity, would be: did the bank lack lawyers, computer scientists and auditors, to prepare and carry out the dismissal demand?
Also according to public accounts – it is not a leak to search email by Deloitte either – the Bank of Spain has a workforce of 3,300 employees. And this is not because its functions have increased, since in reality they have decreased, losing monetary policy with the euro and, later, from 2014, with the creation of the single banking supervision mechanism, 90% of the assets of banks are inspected by the European Central Bank (ECB).
For this reason, the outsourcing, as in the case of the dissident lawsuit -the black sheep or “foreign body”, according to what a high authority told EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA- of the Bank of Spain shock team- Pérez Ramírez is also a professional contempt and a lack of trust in their employees by management. Needless to say, he kicks himself with the neoliberal sermons on austerity that the institution practices, come on, its catechism.
It is assumed that in the invoiced fees of 118,580 euros in relation to the appeal for the expiration of the claim, the Uría law firm will include the pressure exerted on the supreme court which resolved in favor of Pérez Ramírez. Pressure? Yes. How to call a brief that asks the court, while studying the appeal, to act more quickly, among other reasons because if they lost the trial it would cost them more than 400,000 euros in the event of invalid dismissal and that such an important amount would have repercussions in the accounts of the entity in 2022. And they asked, in any case, that the appeal should not be resolved by the room of five magistrates, whose rapporteur was Maria Luz Garcia Paredes.
The matter, he exhorted, should be submitted to the plenary session of ten magistrates of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Among the five magistrates of the room that had to decide was a magistrate from the Uría work environment, Ignacio Garcia-Perrote and that he had heard, before going to the Supreme Court, Pérez Ramírez’s claim.
Who gave the idea to the Bank of Spain or to Uría – so much, so much – to exert that pressure, which the ruling deals with in point 24, underlining the inadmissibility of it in terms of giving preference to the Bank of Spain because before they are, for example, the pensioners, or that it be required to avocate it to the Plenary “because it is a measure that is not available to the parties but is the Presidency of the Chamber, by itself or at the request of the parties, calls the plenary jurisdictional & rdquor ;.
And perhaps also among Uría’s emoluments is the demand to the head of the social court 41 of Madrid, Carmen Rodrigo Saiz which, once the expiration was denied by the Supreme Court, was asked not to issue a sentence, and instead, to raise an issue of unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court regarding the Supreme Court’s sentence. To which the magistrate replied that there was no element for it.
The sentence exposes, on the other hand, the low professional level of the hired lawyers.
“In any case, given that the emails that have been analyzed and investigated are from the corporate email, accessible and verifiable by the Bank of Spain, concealment by the worker cannot be invoked, as they are always available to the defendant. Therefore, all the messages analyzed, at the date of the disciplinary sanction, are prescribed, as more than 60 days have elapsed since the knowledge of the company, and also more than six months (article 60.2 ET On the other hand, the Bank of Spain has not conducted itself according to the protocols to clarify the leak, without having glimpsed another reason to go back a few years and review 47,000 emails & rdquor ;, says the magistrate.
prescribed.
Didn’t they imagine that at the Bank of Spain and at Uría?
Related news
“Aside from the exception of prescriptionbecause the defendant entity always had access to the actor’s corporate account, who never hid those emails or acted with subterfuge or concealment and could examine his email at any time, the conduct that is criticized is not involved in any serious and culpable breach of which is branded in the dismissal letter, blaming transgression of good faith, contractual and abuse of trust, or repeated non-observance of orders and provisions or breach of professional secrecy when it may cause harm to the Bank of Spain, says the magistrate.
The petition appeal in which the Bank of Spain is now embarking it will cost more, which will be covered with gunpowder from the King. But he has a bad prognosis. Because the facts proven in the judgment of the court ‘a quo’ are unbeatable.