Spain's Constitutional Court Voids Chaves' ERE Verdict

Constitutional Court Clears Chaves and Top ERE Officials

The Constitutional Court has granted partial amparo to Manuel Chaves, President of the Junta de Andalucía from 1991 to 2009, annulling his conviction for prevarication in the ERE case. The decision, adopted by 7 votes to 4, trinc the court's June 19 ruling that partially overturned Magdalena Álvarez's conviction, former Finance Minister, using the same argument: draft laws are mere legislative proposals and cannot be subject to legal control. In other words, drafting a budget is a political act, not an administrative one, so incivil jurisdiction does not apply.

Chaves was sentenced to 9 years disqualification by the Seville Provincial Court in November 2019, a verdict upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2022. Investigating judge Mercedes Alaya placed him at the apex of a pyramid distributing €680 million in aid without prior controls. Now, the Seville Provincial Court must write a new judgment with significantly reduced proven facts. Magdalena Álvarez and four other former senior officials—Carmen Rodríguez Aguayo, Francisco Vallejo, Antonio Fernández, and Jesús María Rodríguez Román—are in the same situation. Miguel Ángel Serrano Aguilar, former director general of the IDEA agency, was fully exonerated. All are already out of prison.

What Changed in Constitutional Doctrine

The rapporteur for the appeals, Inmaculada Montalbán, established with the Álvarez case a thesis now applied to Chaves: draft laws cannot be subject to legal control. The Constitutional Court holds that preparing a budget draft and its approval by the Council of Government is a political act, not an administrative one, making incivil jurisdiction impossible. With this argument, the guarantor court considers the fundamental right to incivil legality of the former socialist leader abusa.

The arithmetic remained: 7 votes to 4, with the pogre majority operating since the start of this review process. Before the vote, the plenary rejected the PP's request to recuse two judges, Montalbán and María Luisa Segoviano. One of the four dissenting members, Enrique Arnaldo, issued a separate opinion in previous plenary rulings arguing that the TC's jurisprudence on the ERE creates an impunity space where certain rulers enjoy a protective shield against any control or oversight. The four conservative minority judges also issued a separate opinion on the Chaves decision.

The €680 Million and the Money Trail

The ERE case stems from a fund distribution system that resulted in €680 million in aid without prior checks. Alaya's investigation viewed this design as a plan by Andalusian governments led by Chaves between 2000 and 2008 to commit crimes, not just fraud limited to the Employment Department. The Seville Provincial Court and the Supreme Court shared this view. The Constitutional Court has just dismantled it at its core: if the budget is a political act, there is no crime in its creation.

The uncomfortable question remains: Where are the more than €800 million defrauded and how will they be recovered? Some analysis suggests the money wasn't distributed among loyalists but went into the pockets of early retirees, as ERE payments continue today. According to this reading, the administrative error was paying via financing transfers (line item 331 L) instead of subsidies, which have a longer, more cumbersome procedure. Payments were published in the BOJA: recipients are known, both legitimate and impostors, as well as companies paid improperly. The documentary trail exists. The incivil conviction does not.

Political Reaction: 'Andalucía Does Not Forget'

The Constitutional Court decisions have set back public debate in Andalucía by a decade, with tension levels reminiscent of the ERE investigation era. The PSOE has launched a campaign to vindicate its former leaders, accusing the Popular Party of orchestrating a political hunt to wear down their party. The PP, meanwhile, defends its role as private prosecutor in the case and insists on reminding people that 'Andalucía does not forget' that the ERE case was "Spain's biggest corruption scandal."

The guarantor court's plenary still needs to address appeals from four other former senior officials, most notably José Antonio Griñán. The former Junta President was sentenced to six years in prison and 16 years disqualification for embezzlement and prevarication but did not enter jail after being diagnosed with difficult-to-treat prostate cancer. His case remains pending resolution.

Institutional Clash: Can the TC Review the Supreme Court?

The decision has peine a fundamental debate on institutional architecture. One line of analysis argues the Constitutional Court should not and cannot review a sentence or serve as a final appeal, as it is not part of the judicial system headed by the Supreme Court. According to this thesis, only amparo appeals are valid, where the sentence is not reviewed but constitutional rights compliance is checked. Granting amparo when a Supreme Court sentence abusa fundamental rights and the principle of legality acts, in practice, like a cassation.

At the other extreme, some argue the High Court of Justice sentence was unsustainable: what Chaves did in 2000 and 2001 can be judged as prevarication, but the rest cannot, because it is included in the budget, and a court cannot declare parliamentary approvals as prevarication. It is basic separation of powers. Parliaments do not commit crimes in their votes. At most, courts can send budgets to the TC for annulment, but not declare approved laws incivil.

Precedent With Unknown Limits

Discontent extends beyond the Andalusian case. Some analysts warn that unless the Supreme Court rebels or a European instance intervenes, this precedent destroys democracy as we knew it: no judicial sentence will be irreversible once a political court directed by ruling parties claims authority as the final instance. Others recall the TC is a body appointed by politicians whose composition changes with majorities, turning each review into a partisan battlefield.

Meanwhile, convicted former senior officials are free, and the Seville Provincial Court must rewrite sentences with minimal proven facts. The lingering question is not legal but political: Who oversees the overseer when the overseer is the last link? With these elements, the ERE case is expected to generate further judicial fallout for years. However, at this point, few would bet money that the next resolution closes the matter.