The Court of Instruction Number 4 of Aronain Tenerifeissued on August 17 an order in which it declares the provisional dismissal of the complaint presented against the mayor of the municipality, José Julián Mena, by three fellow council members of his party, the PSOE. These are Dácil León and Juan Sebastián Roque, as well as Luis García, who was expelled from the formation in 2020.
The document, to which this newspaper has had access, establishes that both Mena and the municipal secretary, Pedro Javier Hernández, acted in accordance with the law at the request of these three councilors that the president go to the Non-Appointed Group after that the PSOE open an expulsion file.
In November 2020, the PSOE announced that it would expel Mena from the party, but the mayor filed an appeal against that decision. However, before this was resolved, the three councilors asked to be transferred to the Non-Appointed Group, which did not happen because Mena won the appeal against his party and managed to have said case is annulled by the courts (September 2021).
Given Mena’s refusal to join the Non-Appointed Group, the three councilors filed the complaint in January 2021 in which they accused both the mayor and the municipal secretary of prevaricating and committing legal fraud for their maintenance in the Socialist Group. They argued that the PSOE had expelled Mena and that it had also communicated it to the Arona City Council.
In the plenary session held on November 26, 2020 (after the expulsion was known), the municipal secretary included in the agenda the point in which the communication of the PSOE and the pass to the non-attached of the mayor were recorded. However, before said plenary session was held, José Julián Mena appealed said expulsion, for which the secretary had to make another report stating this fact. Precisely that resource would be the one that would lead him to report favorably on the mayor’s decision to avail himself of article 70 of the Municipal Organic Regulation. This empowers him to withdraw the aforementioned item from the agenda, so it was not passed on to those not assigned, contrary to what the complainants intended.
The known order now establishes, however, that the two reports made by the secretary “are totally consistent with each other. The first of them is based on the non-record of any resource. And the second, on the knowledge of its existence”.
On the other hand, it underlines that the law, when speaking of the expulsion of a political party, “must be understood as a firm expulsion. If it had been wanted, he adds, that the mere expulsion resolution produced said effects, it would have been indicated thus, since, given the irreparable damage that would be produced if an expulsion resolution were made effective, it is reasonable to allow time to obtain or not, the least, a pronouncement regarding the suspension of said resolution, internally within the party or judicially, as occurred in the present case.”
As for the mayor’s decision, the sentence states that “based on the provisions of article 70 of the Municipal Organic Regulation, no legality has been observed up to this time, as there is a favorable legal report, being indifferent and irrelevant. , from the criminal point of view, the fact that the aforementioned mayor has never used said power before.”
Reasons for expulsion and annulment
The PSOE initiated the expulsion of Mena, with an absolute majority in the municipality of Tenerife, arguing “repeated serious offenses”, but the causes were not accredited, according to the ruling that later annulled it and ordered the party to pay court costs. In the sentence it was pointed out that the only documentary evidence in the mayor’s expulsion file is news from the media, news that “cannot be the only evidence to file a person, especially when it is not known what the source of the information is.” the same”. Mena himself declared in watch me tv that she had been expelled “without arguments or reasons” and linked her to certain “business interests that have mobilized at all levels” to get her out of the City Council.
The start of the file took place after Mena dismissed his councilor for Urban Planning, Luis García (one of the plaintiffs for not going to the Non-Appointed Group), pointing out that there were shadows of doubt regarding the construction of a shopping center on the coast of El Camisón, works that were denounced by the Prosecutor’s Office in April 2020. According to Mena, the councilman made decisions far from legality and his behavior “did not meet ethical standards.” García ended up being expelled from the PSOE at the same time as Mena, although his file did become firm.
In the case of Mena, in the sanctioning file, according to the sentence, there was a formal defect in the processing of the procedure that, although it is not in relation to the means through which the communications are made (email and burofax ), it did affect the regulatory deadlines for Mena to be able to defend herself by presenting evidence. This meant, in the judge’s opinion, that Mena was left defenseless by preventing him from using the defense procedure provided for in the PSOE Regulations.
