The bill that repeals the crime of sedition has not yet begun its parliamentary process, but it will already have a practical application: it will be wielded by the defense of the ‘expresident’ of the Generalitat Carlos Puigdemont in the hearings that will be held on November 24 and 25 at the General Court of the European Union (TGUE).
Puigdemont’s defense sources trust that the magistrates, as informed people, newspaper readers and aware of current affairs in the Member States, including Spain, are aware of the proceedings initiated to repeal the crime for which the ex-president fled from Spanish justice is being claimed and for which the European Parliament granted his request to investigate him.
If not, in any case, your lawyer will remind you, Gonzalo Boyebecause the hearings are closely related to the parliamentary immunity of the European deputies and his intention is to begin the one related to his lawsuit against the decision of the European Parliament to grant authorization to investigate him.
In her allege alleged irregularities in the processing, as it was granted after the Eurowarrant and, to imprison him, not to prosecute him. But also related to the speaker who processed the files, whom they consider close to voxa party that, they say, filed a complaint before those of the prosecution, which were the ones that really started the cause of the ‘procés’.
imminent return
If the TGUE (a kind of European first instance, whose decisions can be appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union -CJUE-) agrees with Puigdemontafter holding the hearing, one of the first decisions of the ‘expresident’ will be to return to Spain and, specifically, to Catalonia. This will verify whether the Supreme Court respects the resolutions of European justice, because his arrest would hardly be compatible with immunity that the court decision would grant. If the first ruling does not agree with him, he will appeal to the CJEU, which the sources consulted do not believe the European Parliament is likely to do if it loses.
The defense wants to delay the other pending European sentence: the one that will respond to Llarena on the Euro-orders
The introduction as a relevant new fact of the sedition will be made by the lawyer out loud, but its inclusion can also be requested in writing. This is what Boye did on the 7th in the preliminary ruling procedure that the instructor of the ‘procés’ in the Supreme Court, Pablo Llarena, formulated in relation to the Euro-orders.
The general counsel’s proposal, which usually sets the criteria that the court will follow, was contrary to the interests of Puigdemont and the rest of the ‘ex-consellers’ abroad, because it declared that a country cannot refuse to deliver a person without a systemic risk of violation of rights. Belgium had refused to hand over Lluís Puig to Spain because he considered that the Spanish Supreme Court was not competent to try him and there was a risk of violation of his rights.
If the CJEU complies with Boye’s request and reopens the oral phase, although the initiative is unlikely to prosper, it will achieve that a sentence that is presumed unfavorable to the interests of Puigdemont, scheduled for the end of the year, comes out after the one of the immunity, which is expected to be disclosed in January and February.
criticized reform
Related news
Although the sedition reform has been harshly criticized by Junts, which considers it an expansion of the persecution of citizen mobilization, it is clear that Puigdemont will only find it beneficial, because Spain is claiming him for a crime that it is going to repeal. If the Supreme Court changes its accusation against him to adapt it to the new classification of aggravated public disorder, it will have to file a new petition with the European Parliament, their defense points out.
So the public affirmation of the President of the Government, Pedro Sanchez, that with the reform Puigdemont would continue to have to appear before the judges seems increasingly distant. In any case, everything will depend on the final content of the legislative amendment and the decision adopted by the European courts regarding the immunity conferred by the seat of MEP and which he now enjoys in a precautionary manner.