Fran rivera y sergio ramos

Sergio ramos and other celebrities in the feria de abril

In the judicial fight, which rose to the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) after the appeal filed against the concession of the City Council of Seville in 2012 in favor of the bullfighter, were involved the Temporary Union of Companies (UTE) ‘Lonja del Barranco’ in which Fran Rivera or journalist Carlos Herrera participates and the UTE ‘Mercado de San Pedro’ in which Sergio Ramos or bullfighter José Mari Manzanares are involved. Although his proposal was discarded some time ago, also tried to get the juicy management contract of the gourmet market El Barranco, next to the Triana bridge and very close to the Maestranza, the company in which the brother and also bullfighter Cayetano Rivera and his wife, Eva González, participate.
The footballer’s appeal, admitted for processing by the TSJA in February and now dismissed, argued that Rivera’s company had lied by stating that it was up to date with payments to the Treasury. However, the sentence indicates that Ramos’s company «has not proved the alleged falsehood in the statement about the debts with the Social Security».

Sergio ramos and alejando talavante in el larguero. (24/05.

The High Court then annulled the TSJA’s resolution of September 4, 2017, which rejected the appeal filed by the footballer’s company. The Andalusian court considered that it lacked «active standing» to challenge the award of the contract because such standing corresponds to the UTE «Mercado de San Pedro» and not individually to the company Sermos 32, which also only had a 25% stake in said temporary joint venture. The Supreme Court recognized the possibility of challenging the award.
The Supreme Court then decided to «backtrack the proceedings» and return them to the TSJA, which has now dismissed the appeal filed by the company of the football player. It understands that there is no reason to challenge the decision, considering that the UTE Mercado de San Pedro submitted its offer to the City Council accepting the specifications, which indicated the conditions for the concession.
It also recalls that Sermos 32 has not proven the alleged falsehood in the statement on the debts with the Social Security of one of the companies of the joint venture that finally won the concession, another of the reasons alleged by the footballer’s dam to challenge the concession.

Sergio ramos and fran rivera visit omaita and antonia | the

In a ruling issued on July 10, advanced by the newspaper ABC and to which EFE has had access, the First Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TSJA based in Seville dismisses the appeal filed by Sermos 32 S.L. against the resolution issued on January 23, 2013 by the Court of Contractual Resources of the City Council of Seville, which rejected its appeal against the award of the indirect management of the market.
But Sermos32, the company of Sergio Ramos, decided to challenge that resolution claiming that the proposal submitted by the bullfighter and the radio journalist did not meet the requirements in terms of solvency, that it had not accredited to be up to date with payments to Social Security and the Treasury and that it incurred in the prohibitions to contract.
The complaint of the soccer player’s team also denounced that one of the members of Lonja del Barranco, Julia Catering, falsified its responsible declaration of being up to date with the Treasury and Social Security.

Rivera family

However, since the concession, the company Sermos 32, owned by the Real Madrid soccer player, has continued to insist in court. The battle began in the Court of Contractual Resources of the City Council of the Junta de Andalucía.
Ramos’s company claimed that Herrera and Rivera’s project did not meet the solvency requirements set out in the tender specifications and accused Rivera’s UTE of misrepresentation in the declaration of being up to date with tax obligations. The litigation went through several instances until it reached the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling in February in which it considered that Ramos’s company had standing to appeal.