This is the soft war between the PSOE and PP in the Court of Auditors.

MadridWhen the Court of Auditors announced the sanction of more than 800,000 euros in Vox for irregular financing, In a brief press release dated April 30, the Spanish parliament reported that two councilors had cast a dissenting vote against the resolution. These were Javier Morillas and José Manuel Otero, whom some sources consulted by ARA attributed to the "more conservative" wing of the organization. What that communication didn't say is that, in the plenary session, the vote was a razor-thin 7 to 6 in favor of imposing this significant fine on the far-right party.

While in forums such as Congress, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), or the Constitutional Court (TC), the dispute between the PSOE and the PP—or between the progressive and conservative blocs—is more or less explicit, the dispute in the Court of Auditors goes more unnoticed. This is a very particular body that is not part of the judiciary, although it has jurisdiction over accounting matters. In recent years, it has issued significant rulings against political parties, as in the recent case of Vox, or against individuals, as the instigators of the November 9th and October 1st elections have suffered.

"It's not like the Constitutional Court," says a member of the plenary session regarding the relationship between conservatives and progressives, explaining that the division between sectors is not as rigid as it is in other areas. In the Constitutional Court, for example, it is unusual for a progressive judge to vote with conservatives, and vice versa, although it is remarkable when it happens in sensitive matters. Above all, because it is barely concealed how the interests of the PSOE and the PP align with the actions of their respective blocs in bodies such as the Constitutional Court or the General Council of the Judiciary. These dynamics may also occur in the Court of Auditors, although the institution's functions, which are much more technical in nature, mean they are not as pronounced nor are the resulting clashes under such scrutiny.

Some voices highlight that there were "heated" discussions in the audit of procurement during the pandemic in several public administrations. There was little echo, but at that time there were also divisions and dissenting opinions. What is being conveyed from the right is that the progressive sector asserted its majority to endorse the accounting management of the ministries and, in fact, the Spanish government has boasted of this endorsement by the Court of Auditors to distance itself from the alleged corruption involving former minister José Luis Ábalos, linked primarily to the procurement of materials. In this regard, a councilor proposed by the PP consulted by ARA prefers to distinguish between "pro-government and non-government" sectors, rather than conservative and progressive.

"The strategy of identifying the Court of Auditors as an instrument of a particular political force has always been present," admits a source from the progressive bloc. And it continues to happen now, despite the fact that in the last presidential renewal at the end of 2021, the PP and PSOE introduced profiles with less apparent politicization than in other periods. In the previous term, there were people of unequivocal character, such as Margarita Mariscal de Gante, former Minister of Justice under José María Aznar, or Manuel Aznar, brother of the former Prime Minister. On both sides, the prestige of the vast majority of members is assumed, although the conservative sector points to some political maneuvering.

A prosecutor proposed by García Ortiz

The renewal agreed upon in November 2021 left a plenary session with seven councilors proposed by the PSOE and five by the PP. Furthermore, the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, promoted a change at the head of the Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Auditors and appointed Manuel Martín-Granizo, who also has the right to vote in the plenary session. Right-wing sources criticize him for always acting in line with the criteria of the president, Enriqueta Chicano, who can always be seen close to the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, when they meet at public events. In the resolution on Vox, by 7 to 6, a councilor from the progressive sector voted with the conservative bloc, so the prosecutor's vote was crucial.

Privately, those most inclined to confrontation suggest that the "pro-government" bloc imposed the fine on Vox to gain a media headline that would divert attention from the corruption cases surrounding Pedro Sánchez. Those on the other side argue that it was not a political decision, considering that the proposed sanction was drafted by an investigator assigned to the Court of Accounts' Political Parties Department without a specific order from any superior. "In 99% of cases, the plenary session accepts the investigator's proposal," emphasize sources consulted by ARA.

Several right-wing sources agree that the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, where Vox has appealed the sanction, will overturn the decision. "It will give us a beating," predict some, who consider the fine to be "too far a leap." The dissenting opinion of the two conservative councilors stated that it had not been proven that all the money Vox allegedly collected at street merchandise stalls were anonymous donations, but that some could have been related to the purchase and sale of bracelets or badges and, therefore, could have been a legitimate commercial activity for the party. Thus, in the face of "reasonable doubt," the ruling should be in favor of the political party. Other conservatives also added that to impose sanctions, it is necessary to prove bad faith and that a set of "presumptions" is not enough. However, this entire discussion was not reflected in the official press release from the Court of Accounts.