The former minister and former Secretary of Organization of the PSOE José Luis Ábalos has claimed to the Federal Executive Commission of the socialists who archive the file through which all his rights as a member were suppressed and he has alleged that the legal deadlines have expired.
In September, Ábalos asked the management of the PSOE to declare the expiration of that filewhich issued the precautionary suspension of militancy six months ago, and has now presented allegations against himself for that all his rights be returnedwhile he has challenged the instructor of the disciplinary file aimed at his expulsion from the organization, Alberto Cachinero.
He PSOE suspended militancy of the former Minister of Transport in February, after the alleged involvement of his former advisor became public Koldo Garcia in a scheme to benefit from the purchase of masks during the pandemic, and has since requested his reinstatement as a member.
According to the document, he thus once again asks the Federal Executive Commission of the socialists that all his rights be returned as a member, relying, among other reasons, on a ruling by the Supreme Court which urges actions to be taken within a legally stipulated period to “satisfy the principle of legal certainty.”
“Late” communication
“Consequently, the expiration rests on the need for administrative procedures are completed within a reasonable timein addition to preventing the acting administrations from having discretion when determining this point, which is why it is absolutely contrary to any basic principle of minimum respect for fundamental rights that there is an expiration period,” reads Ábalos’ writing.
He adds that the doctrine of the TS points out that “the expiration of sanctioning procedures is a legal institution with which the aim is to avoid unjustified delay” because, he emphasizes, it is understood that the subjects filed are in “an unfavorable situation that should not be unduly prolong the sanctioning administration”.
Ábalos also puts forward, among other issues, that The communication of the opening of his file (March 5) was late and it occurred a week after it was initiated (February 27), giving him a period of only 24 hours to renounce his record. For this reason, he reiterates that he cannot be accused of “having obstructed the work and decisions” of the party’s organs, since he was not aware of it until several days after the initiation of his file.