• They file a lawsuit against Miguel Abellán for prevarication and bribery

The criminal complaint for prevarication and bribery filed by the Association of Professional Bullfighting Fighters, headed by José Montes, against the managing director of the Center for Bullfighting Affairs of the Community of Madrid, Miguel Abellán, has raised a media storm.

Montes, who defines himself as a "fighter against the system", a businessman accustomed to fighting in the mud of resources and challenges, never exempt from controversy, has already stopped the Las Ventas contest in the second week of March before the Contracting Court Public with the challenge resource of which three points were estimated.

He now he has thrown with everything.

What is the complaint based on? It is based on two alleged crimes, which we believe have been committed, administrative prevarication and bribery.

The administrative prevarication is based on the drafting of an illegal statement knowing its illegality when it comes to expressing it.

And the bribery is based on a series of commissions that have allegedly been collected from the ranchers who deal in the Chenel Cup and the circuits of the Community of Madrid by Miguel Martín, coordinator of the bullfighting schools of the Center for Bullfighting Affairs that he directs Abellán, when it is totally prohibited that a public office can collect these commissions in any concept.

Also the observer.

And is the crime of prevarication linked to the contestation of the Las Ventas specifications? The thought of seeking criminal effects from the first specification [already corrected and newly published] that went out to tender comes from the allegations of the Center for Bullfighting Affairs, which argued that The omission of the 2021 season from the period of time for accreditation of technical solvency is due to the lack of bullfights due to the pandemic in that year.

With this demonstration, knowledge of illegality is demonstrated, since nobody understands that the year 20 is included and not the 21st, when it is the 2020 season when there have truly been no bullfights.

Also in Sales.

It is an absurd excuse that does not intend anything other than to limit the competition and favor the current winning company [Plaza 1],

destined, in my modest opinion, to win the tender. Apart from that point, it won two others in the Public Procurement Court, which forced the contest to be stopped and to undertake a correction and a new publication of the corrected specifications. Indeed.

But I believe that one of the points rejected by the Public Procurement Court, against which I am studying another lawsuit for arbitrariness in its resolution, should not have been.

Miguel Abellán himself, who takes responsibility for drafting the specifications, has authorized himself to issue technical assessment reports on the offers based on criteria subject to value judgments [35 points in the programming section], when this is clearly prohibited by the Public Sector Contract Law in article 286.5.

No public office can issue valuation reports.

It is like wanting to show that the age of majority in Spain is not 18 years.

He says a lot about Abellán's eagerness when it comes to giving the 35 points that clearly decline the tender.

The owner of Las Ventas is believed. Why has the correction of the specification not met his expectations? There is a point, which has not been valued, which says that the specification is a mixed contract.

Any jurist would not hesitate since he mixes a service concession with a remodeling work in the Plaza de Las Ventas.

And he also mixes the service concession of the bullring with a provision of service such as directing the bullfighting schools.

There is no concession there.

Directing the bullfighting schools of the Community of Madrid does not have any operational risk as contemplated by law.

There is money allocated to its management, period.

All this cannot be cataloged in any other way than a mixed contract. The alleged commissions of the bullfighting circuits, paid for with public money, collected under the CAT [4% as inspector] that lead him to include the crime of bribery in the complaint is another matter. I am sure that the high-level political positions of the Community of Madrid are not aware of what is happening.

Miguel Martín is allegedly charging them on behalf of the Center for Bullfighting Affairs.

In these times, talking about commissions without any justification in public office is persecuted by law.

But as right now as in the Bullfighting Affairs Center there are Martín and Abellán, who belong to the world of the bull, and the world of the bull is prone to doing things by inertia to some customs of the sector, they have seen it as normal.

And they have not been aware that when they appoint you to public office there are things that change in your life.

A public position entails a responsibility. I don't understand why the lawsuit is extended to businessmen Simón Casas and Rafael García Garrido? There is a legal figure called

extraneus

that considers that the cooperators in the crime of prevariation do not need to be public officials.

And I think there is a cooperation between Abellán and the current businessmen for the drafting of the specifications to be the beneficiaries.

I want at least that it be investigated. How would you classify the management of Miguel Abellán? He has been in his position for two and a half years, of which the square has been without activity for two years and the only assignment he had was to write a statement that he presumed to be the best of history and has been knocked down in a Contracting Court for three points.

And today a second statement has been published, which is also his responsibility, which again has blunders. Do you think the deadlines will be met to arrive? It's impossible.

There are the deadlines set by the Law.

May 3 is the deadline to submit the application for presentation.

Once they have been presented, opened, analyzed, giving a time for rectification in case something has to be corrected, another 30 calendar days must be left to present the offers.

Analysis, correction, some deficiency, we can go to June 15 or 20 to appoint an entrepreneur.

But in addition, the Law says that a period of 15 calendar days must be given between the awarding and signing of the contract.

To those who insist on saying yes, we must tell them that the Law says no.

And all this thinking that there is no new resource. -What are you pursuing with all this? My fight has always been against the system.

That Madrid has an exemplary statement.

And that it be a reference of transparency, equal treatment and maximum competition for the rest of the contracting authorities,

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

  • Madrid's community

  • Justice

  • Bulls