18

The sanctioning procedures referred to in sections a) and b) of the previous article shall be initiated upon the decision of the full bench of the Court of Auditors.
One. The decision to initiate the above-mentioned proceedings shall include at least the following:
a) Identification of the allegedly responsible political party.
b) The facts that motivated the initiation of the proceedings, their possible legal characterisation and the penalties that may apply.
c) The examining magistrate, with express indication of the steps the political party must take if it wishes to object to him or her acting as examining magistrate in the proceedings.

The initiation decision shall be notified to the examining magistrate and to the accused political party, informing the latter that it has a period of fifteen days to submit all the allegations, documents and information that it deems opportune, to request the opening of a period for the gathering, submission and consideration of evidence and to propose the means of proof that it deems appropriate.
The initiation decision shall be accompanied by the documents and the evidence taken into account by the Court of Auditors prior to initiating the proceedings.
Two. A period for the gathering, submission and consideration of evidence shall be opened in the following instances:
a) When so requested by the political party concerned during the allegations period established in the previous article, proposing the specific means of proof.
b) When, in the absence of a specific request by the political party concerned, the examining magistrate deems it necessary in order to clarify the facts and to establish who is responsible. In this case, the examining magistrate shall give a period of five days to the parties concerned to propose the means of proof they deem opportune.
c) The period for the gathering, submission and consideration of evidence shall last thirty working days.
d) The examination of the evidence shall be carried out in accordance with that established in article 81 of Law 30/1992, on the Legal System for Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure.
Three. Once the period for the gathering, submission and consideration of evidence has concluded, the examining magistrate shall issue a proposal for settlement, which must contain:
1) If it is upheld that an infringement and liability exists:
a) The facts considered to be proven and the weighing up of the evidence on which that consideration is based.
b) The political party considered to be responsible, the legal principles and the weighing up of the evidence on which that consideration is based.
c) The legal principles characterising the infringements under which the events are considered to be classed, and the reasons for that consideration, which can only be those that appear in sections a) and b) of article 17 of this Law.
d) The penalties considered to be appropriate, as per the terms of article 17 of the Organic Law on the funding of political parties, the legal principles on which the penalties are based, the circumstances considered, the legal principles and the weighing up of the evidence on which that consideration is based, as well as, where appropriate, the proposal to suspend, fraction or modify the enforcement of the penalty and the reasons for the proposal.

2) If it is upheld that no infringement or liability exists:
a) The acquittal proposal.

Four. The acquittal proposal shall be notified to the interested parties, informing them that they have a period of fifteen days to submit allegations. In the notification, the interested parties shall also be informed that during said period the dossier of the case shall be made available to them for consultation and making copies of documents.
Once the submission of allegations period has ended, the examining judge shall immediately submit the proposal for settlement to the full bench of the Court of Auditors, together with the documents, allegations and information held in the dossier, for a judgement to be delivered.
Five. The examining magistrate, stating his or her grounds, may extend the above-mentioned allegations and evidence periods only once by a number of days equal to or fewer than the number of days established above for said periods, provided that, owing to the volume and nature of the evidence to be examined, the complexity of the factual situations and the legal questions analysed or other appropriate reasons, such extension is considered to be necessary to adequately establish the facts in issue and the responsibilities or to guarantee the effective defence of the accused.
Six. Decisions by the examining magistrate to refuse the opening of a period for the gathering, submission and consideration of evidence or for examining any means of proof proposed by the parties may be appealed within a period of three days, and the examining judge's failure to reply to the application for appeal shall mean that the application has been dismissed.
Seven. The full bench of the Court of Auditors shall deliver a reasoned judgement which shall address all the aspects put forward by the political party concerned and those derived from the proceedings. The judgement settling the proceedings shall contain the information established in section three of this article.
The full bench of the Court of Auditors, the competent authority to deliver a judgement, may only make changes to the statement of facts provided in the proposal for settlement in order to clarify them or take others into account only when such changes are beneficial to the accused. In the decision, the competent authority to deliver a judgement shall give the specific reasons for making such changes to the statement of facts.

If the judgement is not notified within a period of six months from the initiation of the proceedings, it means that the action has lapsed. The lapsing of the above-mentioned six-month period shall be interrupted whilst the proceedings are at a standstill for reasons attributable to the parties concerned.
Eight. The sanctioning decisions adopted by the Court of Auditors may be appealed through the contentious-administrative channel in the Supreme Court. When such sanctioning decisions resolve to reduce or not to pay the annual subsidies for operating expenses, the filing of the appeal shall automatically suspend the enforcement of the decision adopted by the Court of Auditors.