The Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid has requested the Court of Instruction number 26 to file the complaint filed by Vox against three senior government officials for irregularities in the purchase of medical supplies, because it understands that the minimum indications have not been “sufficiently” specified. to proceed with the investigation. Remember that the Court of Auditors audited the contracts denounced.

In the opinion of the Public Ministry, the complaint, for which the Director of the National Institute of Health Management, the general director of Rationalization and Centralization of Procurement and the general director of the Common Portfolio of the National Health and Pharmacy System have already testified , is based on “mere conjectures and suspicions without being able to appreciate the concurrence of sufficient elements of typicity with respect to the notitia criminis”.

Vox maintained that between March 13 and April 30, 2020, 56 contracts were signed by the National Institute of Health Management (INGESA) without any advertising and outside of any administrative procedure. In addition, it alluded to the fact that a dozen awards were made to companies of “doubtful” existence since only one company name was known.

For the Prosecutor’s Office, the complaint provides “conjecture” and does not specify “what types of breaches in administrative contracting were incurred by the public entity in said contracts”, a lack of specificity that does not justify investigating the facts due to their importance and notoriety ” for being able to have prospective character, existing other procedures for its generic control».

Likewise, the letter from the Prosecutor’s Office analyzes the regulations in force at the time of the INGESA contracts, between the months of March and April 2020. It recalls that given the “notorious” and “unquestionable” fact of the pandemic, “it was necessary to adapt the way of contracting” and refers to the analysis of the contracts of this public entity made by the Court of Auditors to reach the conclusion that “they were carried out in full compliance with administrative regulations”.

On the other hand, it specifies that in what refers to the contracts included in the complaint, “the documentary provided by the State Attorney, providing the administrative records and appreciating the existence of sufficient control regarding both the form of contracting and the requirement of compliance with the obligations contracted by the successful bidder, also lead to urging the dismissal and filing of the criminal investigation.

Lastly, the Prosecutor’s brief alludes to the participation of the three defendants in the events denounced. For the representative of the Public Ministry, the statement made in court by the director of INGESA is “relevant” and, although he admitted that he was the person responsible for the contracts entered into by his department, recalled that all of them were subject to prior inspection and later by the Court of Auditors, “where in accordance with what was stated by the investigated party, the administrative budgets for the execution of the contracts in all their phases were fulfilled”.

As for the general directors of Rationalization and Centralization of Contracting and of the Common Portfolio of the National Health and Pharmacy System service, he recalls that the first of them assumed the position of contracting body with respect to INGESA for five days “supporting compliance and adaptation to the contracting law whose responsibility was entrusted to it, in accordance with the report of the Court of Auditors provided in the case».

Regarding the second “nothing has been proven, since it lacked the powers to be able to participate in the contracts denounced, an extreme that prevents any type of criminal liability requirement.”