economy and politics

Alberto Rodríguez asks for compensation to Congress of 134,000 euros for the withdrawal of his seat

The Constitutional again gives the reason to Alberto Rodríguez and annuls the withdrawal of his seat in Congress

The former Unidos Deputy We can This newspaper. The Table of the Lower House has transferred the petition to the Council of Ministers to understand that it is the competent body to decide on this matter.

The now leader of Drago Canarias has formalized this claim a year after the Constitutional Court gave him the reason and annulled the withdrawal of his seat after being convicted of kicking a policeman in 2014. The progressive majority of the plenary Second time in a few days to the former deputy for Santa Cruz de Tenerife after a first sentence that understood that his sentence of the Supreme Court had been disproportionate to have maintained the effects of a 45 -day prison punishment, which was finally replaced by a fine.

The Supreme Court in 2021 to Rodríguez 45 days in prison for kicking a national police in a demonstration in La Laguna in 2014. His prison sentence was replaced by a fine, as happens by law with all the lower punishments Three months, but in addition to the money, the disqualification for passive suffrage was maintained: the one that prevents presenting to elections while the sentence lasts. At that time, the High Court and the then president of the Congress, Meritxell Batet, exchanged a series of letters and consultations to define the scope of the sentence. Batet decided to remove the seat.

Rodríguez is based on the Constitutional Court ruling for this claim for “patrimonial responsibility” against what he understands as a “non -normative parliamentary act.”

The table derives the issue to the Council of Ministers after “appreciating the concurrence of a cause of inadmissibility for processing due to lack of competence of the table of the Congress of Deputies,” says the Government Body of the Lower House, which he remembers in his conclusions on the claim that according to the doctrine of the Supreme Court is the Government who has to pronounce on an issue like this.

Source link