All the material is ready. Both the defendant’s attorneys for alleged acts of alleged harassment, illegal monitoring of agents and/or subcontractors of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) in Monaco and London, and defamation –John Charles I– like those of the plaintiff – her ex-lover Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein– have submitted their arguments and evidence to the Court of Appeal of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
Now it is a question of knowing if a judge or judge –usually it is one or only one– appreciates “sustainable reasons of law & rdquor; to authorize an appeal against the judgment of last March 24 by which the judge Matthew Nicklin He rejected the sovereign or State immunity invoked by the defense of Juan Carlos I to get rid of the civil lawsuit of his ex-lover.
Normally, the “verdict & rdquor; it is very short. The judge or judge Court of Appeals had not designated, until Monday, June 21, who the decision will fall on – resolves and communicates “in writing & rdquor; (‘case given a decision on paper’), according to a ruling dated June 15, known by this newspaper.
Immunity, yes or no
If it is appreciated that the sovereign immunity on which the defense of John Charles I (the emeritus is a member of the royal family, he is a sovereign and a member of the Spanish Royal House) has signs of prospering given that it is a debatable issue or raises a very relevant situation for the law, the judge will give green light for a appeal; otherwise it will be denied.
Therefore, apparently a substantive issue is not discussed. But there is no doubt that after Judge Nicklin denied the first request to appeal on March 29 in appeal or reposition –resources that are called that in the Spanish judicial system–, a second negativecontrary to Juan Carlos I, introduces the procedure in the other two preliminary questions that, together with immunity, are dragging out this cause.
“The rules of civil procedure through article 52.6. 1 point out that to grant permission to appeal, the Court considers that the appeal has real prospects of being upheld or relevant issues that justify hearing the appeal & rdquor ;, points out the barrister (lawyer who presents the cases before the courts) Joseph Galvezfrom the Del Canto Chambers law firm, in London, to EL PERIÓDICO.
wish paper
“The defense of the king emeritus has already requested the first appeal request at the hearing on March 29. She has already had the opportunity to argue her desire to appeal at a hearing. For these purposes, the Court of Appeals When reviewing the petition, he will do it on paper, because he understands that they have had the opportunity to express their points of view. On exceptional occasions that justify it, there may be a hearing, but here it would be a matter of reproducing what was already said on March 29 & rdquor ;, she explained.
In effect, Judge Nicklin dismissed the appeal of his own decision. His sentence of March 24 contains forceful arguments.
“If Juan Carlos I steals a diamond ring from a jewelry store in Hatton Garden [en Camden, el histórico `distrito del diamante´ en Londres] He would not, according to his defense, face civil or criminal proceedings in this jurisdiction (unless the Spanish State waives its immunity). This is not possible & rdquor ;, sentenced the judge.
legal hurdle
The barrier that is posed to appeal both to be authorized and if it managed to break through after this first filter – the authorization – is that Judge Nicklin’s ruling cites jurisprudence precisely from the Court of Appeals to define whether Juan Carlos I is part of the House of His Majesty King Felipe VI (‘household’ in English).
As he said, “the Court of Appeals has held that historically the central criterion for expanding the personal immunity to members of a diplomatic embassy (apart perhaps from the wives) is the dependence, and not the activity of those people in diplomatic tasks or functions on behalf of the diplomat & rdquor ;. And in application of this criterion, taking into account the arguments of Corinna’s lawyers, the judge held that John Charles I had no dependency on Philip VI and that, even, his annual allowance (193,000 euros) had been taken away.
The defense of Juan Carlos I argued that the judge should take into account that “the Court of Appeals He has not formulated a test or proof to interpret the phrase “members of his family forming part of the Royal House & rdquor ;.
No documentary evidence
Related news
Therefore, Nicklin pointed out that “it is up to me to decide if Juan Carlos I is a member of the family of King Felipe VI, forming part of his Royal House based on the evidence presented in this case.” And taking into account the same, among them, although not decisive but illustrative, the fact that neither the defense nor the Foreign Office Secretary [Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores británico] could present to the court an official document on the condition or status of Juan Carlos I in the Spanish constitutional orderthe judge ruled that the circumstance that the king emeritus is the father of Felipe VI and a member of the family, does not mean that he is a member of the Royal House.
Judge Nicklin wants to expedite as much as possible the procedure to enter into the acts that Corinna’s lawsuit denounces. In principle, he announced on March 29 that he wanted the Court of Appeals to resolve the matter in order to hold a hearing on July 1 in the Superior Court of Justice with the aim of resolving the two previous issuesonce that of immunity has been overcome: the allegedly irregular way, according to the defense of Juan Carlos I, of communicating the lawsuit to him on December 29, 2020 (by whatsapp to his mobile phone since it could not be registered in the Zarzuela Palaceaccording to Corinna’s lawyers) and the request that the English justice decline jurisdiction in favor of Spain on the grounds that the acts of harassment do not fit in the law of the United Kingdom.