The appeal requests “to revoke the appealed resolution, revoking the agreed inhibition because the Supreme Court is not the judge pre-established by law to hear these facts.”
The head of the office of the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont in Brussels, Josep Lluís Alayha appealed before the Criminal Chamber ofand the National Court the decision of Judge Manuel García-Castellón to submit a reasoned statement to the Supreme Court so that it can take on the Democratic Tsunami case and thus be able to charge to the former president and the deputy of the Parliament Rubén Wagensberg, both gauged.
The 79-page appeal, to which El Periódico de Catalunya, from the Prensa Ibérica group, has had access, asks “revoke the appealed resolution, revoking the agreed inhibition because it was not the Supreme the judge pre-established by law to understand these facts.” He maintains that The dismissal must be ordered because “the facts do not constitute any crime” and, subsidiarily, “if it were understood that the facts would constitute a crime, they would not constitute terrorism.”
Hence, what I propose is to revoke the appealed resolution, leaving the agreed inhibition void and, in its place, refer “the proceedings to the investigating court that corresponds in turn depending on the place where the crime was committed.” each of the events that are the subject of this procedure because they are not materially related events”, in relation to the Democratic Tsunami calls investigated, among which are the blockade of the Barcelona-El Prat airport and that of the AP-7, to the height of La Jonquera. The appeal is added to the one already filed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the National Court that considers that the facts constitute public disorder.
The appeal signed by lawyer Gonzalo Boye states that “the theory that it is about terrorismwhich García-Castellón maintains, because it would be “The failure of the Intelligence Center against Terrorism and Organized Crime (CITCO) in its tasks is evident.“.
“We know that this has not been the case and, therefore, there is no choice but, first, to assume thethe artificiality of this procedure as well as its purpose and, second, keep in mind that in criminal law unicorns do not exist because they have another name. And, in any case, if there were a doubt about what we are saying, the person responsible for clarifying it would be the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) but, with a procedure of these characteristics, any attempt to refer it to said court will only would lead us to an embarrassing situation that would go beyond raising a preliminary ruling on a clarified issue and would expose the shame of this procedure before European justice,” the appeal states.
He also argues that in the case being followed in the National Court “the intention is to investigate a series of events that not only are not crimes related to terrorism but, in addition, have either already been investigated and punished or are in the process of being investigated.” be” by the courts where the events occurred, which “collides head-on with the fundamental right to non bis in idem but also with state policies regarding the fight against terrorism.”