The lawyers of Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein revealed at the hearing this Thursday, July 20, at the High Court of England and Wales that the frontal questioning of the British jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged harassment to which she was subjected by Juan Carlos I as of 2014 it was only raised -to the parties and to the court- in March 2023, which they have described as “clear abuse of the process & rdquor;. Until then, the defense of the emeritus focused its legal strategy on the state immunity and in the search for a more appropriate court to prosecute harassment (the so-called ‘forum non conveniens’).
The change in law firm seems to explain the different orientation now emerging.
“The Clifford Chance law firm, aware of the difference between the criteria of ‘forum non conveniens’ and the questioning of jurisdiction [británica] made it absolutely clear that they were trying to raise a [jurisdicción] foreign alternative. And there was no indication at that time that jurisdiction as such was going to be challenged. Not once was it mentioned& rdquor ;, explained the lawyer Andrew Green. This law firm was later replaced by Carter Ruck and this one, finally, Velitor Lawwho has assumed the defense of the emeritus.
According to Corinna’s defense, all objections to the jurisdiction issue must be raised at the same time and not delay filing through separate applications. That is why they speak of an abuse of the process.
friendly countries
The ‘forum non conveniens’ proposal assumes that one court, the British one, recognizes that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to that forum. This declining jurisdiction is the one initially raised by the lawyer hired by the Clifford Chance law firm, who came to base the proposal on the fact that Spain and the United Kingdom are two friendly countries.
It is true that the defense of Juan Carlos I made State immunity until June 18, 2014, the date of his abdication, the central objective of his action, leaving aside the issue of jurisdiction.
The judge Collins Ricealthough little given to intervene, pointed out to Green if the defense of the emeritus had put all the eggs in the same basket, that of immunity.
“What may have happened is that all the eggs were laid in the same immunity basket. the defendant [Juan Carlos I ] He raised different approaches and was successful in some but not others. And they had the idea of reserving issues geographically if I can approach it in a flexible way& rdquor ;.
Geographic location
The other point that has aroused the interest of the judge has been that of the acts allegedly committed by Juan Carlos I against Corinna in terms of their geographical location. The defense of the emeritus maintains that each conduct must be analyzed separately, that is, the place in which it would have taken place.
“The court,” Green pointed out, “does not have to adopt the defendant’s defense point of view, which implies considering each individual act and where each individual conduct has occurred. This approach is a complete mistake. The nature of the conduct involves conduct spanning many years including numerous individual acts of harassment,” Green said.
Judge Collins Rice then evoked the argument of the defense of the emeritus the day before in the sense that to take into account the “course of conduct & rdquor; of Juan Carlos I the facts should be prosecuted in the country where the defendant is domiciled. In other words, at the address that Juan Carlos I maintained in those years: the Palacio de la Zarzuela, in Spain.
Related news
The point of view of Corinna’s lawyers is that most acts of harassment and its impact on the mental health and the ex-lover’s business of Juan Carlos have taken place in London, where he lived for much of the time. And, in addition, the emeritus, after his abdication in June 2014, frequently moved to the London capital, where he would have perpetrated acts of harassment with mutual friends, and in some cases, associates of Corinna.
two incidents
Discussions proceed as normal. An incident took place last Wednesday. Apparently, according to legal sources consulted, the emeritus was following the audience from Abu Dhabi, where he resides, and on two occasions a image with two people, a man in shorts and a woman, and behind a person who was not seen but who spoke to them. It sounded like the voice of Juan Carlos I. Judge Collins protested the first time. And the second time she warned that if it happened again she would get up and leave the court. Another incident was that of the publication of images of the sight in a twitter account in Spain, immediately deleted, which also provoked a protest from the judge and a request for explanations, given that the reproduction of photos of the session is prohibited. There was a later apology. Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein was among the public at the hearing and would have crossed paths with Juan Carlos I, who was following the hearing from Abu Dhabi.