The Court of Madrid has confirmed the decision of a court of Do not cite the former Madrid president as investigated Esperanza Aguirre for the alleged illegal reduction of 135 beds in the Puerta de Hierro hospital in Majadahonda with an alleged damage of 10 million euros to the public treasury.
This is how the Provincial Court agrees in a car in which dismisses the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office against the decision of the Court of Instruction number 53 of Madrid of not citing as investigated in this case Esperanza Aguirre, the former Minister of Health of the Community of Madrid Juan José Güemes and the former Deputy Minister of Health Assistance Ana Sánchez Hernández.
In its decision, the Court he did admit summoning the former general director of Economic Management and Purchasing of Sanitary and Pharmaceutical Products Jesús Alejandro VA to testify as an investigator.
The Court recalls that the Prosecutor’s Office maintains that the approval of the amended hospital, due to the change from double rooms to single rooms, it should have been accompanied by the economic quantification that implied in the contract the reduction in costs produced by the concessionaire company the elimination of 135 beds and the reduction in the amount of the canon to be paid by the Administration .
For this reason, the Prosecutor’s Office considers that Jesús Alejandro VA. “he omitted the exercise of the powers derived from his position since he should have proceeded as soon as possible to the proposal of economic rebalancing of the contract in favor of the Administration”which is why the Court did admit that he declared as investigated.
However, with respect to Aguirre, Güemes and Ana Sánchez, the Court considered that “the fact that they were the heads of the Community of Madrid, the Ministry of Health and the contracting authority in May 2008, does not justify the attribution of the condition of being investigated”.
The Court recalls that in his judicial statement, Jesús Alejandro VA “assumed the action carried out, which was explained at length, denying having received instructions from his superiors, without deferring responsibility to other people and reiterating having followed the technical criteria established before arriving at the position”.
The Chamber shares the criteria of the Court in its allusion “to the prohibition of objective attributions of responsibility for the mere fact of the position or charge that a specific person holds in the organization, however high it may be, in order not to violate the principle of guilt”.