Santa Cruz de Tenerife (EFE).- The Unified Association of Civil Guards (AUGC) has appealed the order of the Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in charge of the “Mediator case” that accepts the appearance of the six parties who have requested it on condition that they share the same accusation, since he understands that it would force him to assume approaches of an ideological nature.
Last Wednesday, the judge instructing the proceedings on this alleged corruption plot accepted the appearance in the case of the six parties that have asked to exercise the popular action -PSOE, PP, Vox, the AUGC, the local party Fuerza Canaria and the association of consumers Aguaiuris- but only if they form a single accusation and are represented by the same lawyer.
This Friday the AUGC has reported that it has appealed that decision with the “essential” argument that the obligation established by the order to unify legal and procedural representation means “breaking” the various rules that regulate the statute of professional associations of guards civilians.
For example, in this statute it is essential to safeguard political and ideological neutrality, explains the AUGC.
Since four of the entities that have tried to appear are political parties and therefore, their position obeys an ideological political position and the other is a consumer organization “which also undoubtedly and legitimately has its ideological burden”, the concurrence in a single defense and also the The fact of forcing the initiation of the procedure through a complaint “would mean that AUGC would have to assume approaches of a political ideological nature,” argues the association.
This would contravene the mandatory rules that it has as a professional association of members of the Civil Guard, he says.
Therefore, he adds, “it is not possible to force the AUGC to unify the popular accusation with political parties and ideological associations” and also maintains that what the order intends “is to annul the right of professional association and the right to obtain of effective judicial protection of AUGC”.
Likewise, it continues, the filing of a complaint is not required when the proceedings have already begun, as is the case in this case.
The AUGC also warns that a bond cannot be required when there is already an imputation in the case, as determined by the consolidated doctrine of the Supreme Court for both issues. EFE