The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has admitted in a judgment that the advertisements issued by the Catalan Corporation of Auditory Mitjans (TV-3 and Catalunya Radio) of the Civisme campaign (the spot on the train tracks that was linked to the 1-0 referendum) must not be paid for by the Generalitat and, therefore, will not be paid for with public money . The high court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation and confirms that the Government does not have to pay two bills for about 335,000 euros.
This resolution supports the thesis defended by the former Minister of the Presidency Jordi Turull andn the judgment of the ‘procés’ that these announcements did not entail any expense for the public treasury. The Supreme Court, however, he was convicted of embezzlement for this concept, as well as for commissioning Unipost to make posters, brochures and envelopes. In this way, part of the accusation for embezzlement falls, although the sentence of the ‘procés’ is final.
The ruling of the TSJC is relevant before the Court of Auditors, which claims 380,000 euros for this matter and, even, in the case that is being followed in the Investigating Court number 13 of Barcelona for the preparations for the unilateral independence referendum.
Framework agreement
In the lawsuit processed in the TSJC, the Corporation claimed the amount for the advertisements, considering that a debt had been generated and had not yet been paid. These invoices reached the Generalitat at the end of 2017 through an email and not through the official contracting platform, so they were not paid. In 2019, the Corporation again requested payment from the Presidency, but the department did not respond. The Government considers that the announcements were part of the framework agreement that it has with the Corporation and that they should be broadcast free of charge.
Related news
The judgment of the TSJC, advanced by The Mon and to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access, maintains that the Corporation “knew that it was facing an illegal action and that it was not appropriate to broadcast an advertisement about which it had been previously warned by the Constitutional Court & rdquor ;, a warning that the audiovisual entity denies.
The resolution emphasizes that the Corporation “made the decision to carry out the service without a contract that supports it and knowing that its performance is outside the margins of legality & rdquor ;. And it concludes that “the collection action of some invoices cannot prosper in the absence of a contract that covers them & rdquor ;.