The Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has acquitted the former manager of Casinos de Tenerife of an offence of prevarication for which he was initially sentenced to 9 years of disqualification from holding public office.
Specifically, the Criminal Court 6 of Santa Cruz de Tenerife stated that Hermenegildo Hernández acted “with absolute disregard for the current legality” between 2012 and 2014 when he agreed to the successive hiring of direct award services for advertising and uniform supply from two companies, which charged annual amounts exceeding 18,000 euros that “were not justified.”
The Court dismantles the contested ruling by considering that the casinos are not a public administration, but commercial entities owned by public capital (Cabildo de Tenerife) and lacking the ability to award contracts.
It also recalls that the public sector contracting law establishes a differentiated regime depending on whether contracts are made by public administrations, public sector entities that are not public administrations but hold the position of awarding authorities, and, finally, other public sector entities such as the companies that operate the casinos.
It adds that contracts entered into by the latter are considered private, although they must be adjusted to the principles of publicity, competition, transparency, confidentiality, equality, and non-discrimination, as it believes occurred with those that are the subject of this legal case.
In the contracts signed for amounts below 18,000 euros, the Court does not perceive any irregular fragmentation of them, as did the contested ruling.
Moreover, it sees it as “reasonable” that the contracting for uniform supplies was divided into annual periods by batches and underscores that the advertising contracts had “clearly distinguishable and separate provisions.”
Regarding the four contracts that exceeded the amount of 18,000 euros set for smaller contracts, the Court finds “technical justification” for all of them.
This includes a contract for advertising on billboards, a business that, “apparently and as alleged, is practically monopolised” by the contracted company; and three contracts for uniform supplies due to the “labour conflict” at the casinos, which necessitated hiring new staff and providing them with clothing.
The Court considers it “excessive” that the contested ruling states “simply” that there was no competition when several witnesses asserted precisely the opposite, and in no case does it find that unfavourable hiring for the casino companies took place.
The complaint was filed by the then insular group of Podemos, and the popular action was exercised by former councillor María José Belda.
