In the appeal against the refusal to exercise private prosecution, the lawyer for the Catalan Executive alleges that the party founded by Puigdemont is not the “heir” of Convergència and that it has nothing to do with the PDECat
The lawyers of the Generalitat they defend together in the appeal filed against the decision of the judge of the National Court Santiago Pedraz not to let them exercise the private prosecution in the ‘Triacom case’ in which the alleged illegal financing of Democratic Convergence (CDC) through the audiovisual production company of the same name. This process is a derivative of the ‘3% case’ of payment of commissions in exchange for services and public works. In the letter, to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access, the Catalan Executive maintains that the party founded by Carles Puigdemont presented itself alone in the last elections in Catalonia and that as such it is part of the coalition government, but alleges that it is “wrong ” that is the “heir” of CDC.
The representative of the Generalitat also disassociates Junts from the PDECat, which in the ‘3% case’ has the status of being investigated, since they are two different parties that participated separately in the elections, while making it clear that “none of the members” of the current Catalan Executive have “some” connection with it. To demonstrate the lack of links between the two political formations, he brings up the agreement of the electoral board that denied Junts in 2021 the rights derived from the electoral system and decided that they belonged to the PDECat. He rejects, therefore, the “nonexistent coalition” between the two parties, alluding to an argument by the prosecutor that the PDECat is present in Junts per Catalunya.
The institution and the parties
The appeal also highlights that “an obvious error” is incurred in “confusing” the institution of the Generalitat with the political parties. “There is no such legal identity, the Administration of the Generalitat is totally independent and unrelated to any political party”, he specifies. He insists that “this link cannot be established between political parties and the government” and, in this case, the Catalan Executive is made up of a coalition of parties in which “at least one of them” (ERC) can “be subject to of any kind of relationship, not even past, with the facts investigated”.
The lawyer of the Catalan Administration defends that the Generalitat is entitled to exercise the accusation, since the production company Triacom is one of the main providers of TV-3, which belongs to the Catalan Corporació de Mitjans Audiovisuals, a public entity that finances itself, mainly , of the Catalan budgets. It points out that despite not having detailed information on the cause, it can be deduced from the news that appeared in the media that Triacom sold its programs to Catalan television “well above” the production costs (the surcharge exceeded 50 %). The amounts that were paid in excess were allegedly used by the producer to “pay later false invoices issued by companies related to the CDC.” These facts, emphasizes the lawyer, would mean an “affectation of the public treasury” and a detriment to the interests of the Catalan administration. Oriol Carbó, manager of the production company Triacom and defended by Manuel González Peeters, once again rejects admitting the Generalitat to the process as an accusation and points to spurious interests that have “nothing to do with finding out the material truth”.