The majority Association of Prosecutors (AF) and the prosecutor of the Chamber José Miguel de la Rosa will appeal again the decision of the State Attorney General, Dolores Delgado, to promote Eduardo Esteban as prosecutor of the Juvenile Coordinator Chamber, ignoring the Court’s rulings Supreme that annulled his designation unanimously.

According to tax sources reported to EL MUNDO, both parties are currently studying the legal formula to bring before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the High Court the new appointment made by the Government at the request of its former Minister of Justice. For its part, from the Independent Professional Association of Prosecutors (APIF) they study joining the resources or incidents of execution of sentence that are going to be presented against the decision in the coming days, as this newspaper has learned.

Fiscal sources consulted consider the actions of the attorney general to be “nonsense” and make it ugly that in the motivation for the appointment she has disregarded the merit and capacity of prosecutor De la Rosa, to whom the Supreme Court itself recognized a curriculum far superior to that of Esteban.

“It’s tremendous because Delgado tells the Supreme Court that he cannot review an arbitrary appointment”, “he has gotten into a mess because his decision borders on prevarication” or “the attorney general tries to amend the Supreme Court’s plan and applies the criterion that I place my colleagues and I don’t care about merit and ability” are some of the comments that have circulated today in the Public Prosecutor’s Office after the new appointment of Esteban, a member of his former association the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF).

In the 22-page letter of motivation for the appointment of the new prosecutor for the Juvenile Court, Delgado challenges the High Court and defends “the need to recognize the State Attorney General wide margins of discretion in the exercise of her powers”, among Among them, one of the “most relevant” is the “power to make discretionary appointments or, where appropriate, to submit proposals for appointments to the Government,” which must be considered correctly exercised “provided they respond to a lawful and legitimate purpose.”

In this sense, the attorney general considers that the judgments of the High Court “must be applied and interpreted within the constitutional, legal and statutory framework so as not to achieve results or arrive at unwanted postulates for the future of the institution.”

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria