The General Court of the European Union has certified that the European Parliament acted correctly in its decision to lift, at the request of the Supreme Court, the parliamentary immunity of Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí, rejecting all the arguments formulated by the MEPs.
First of all, the idea of political persecutionacknowledging that for the granting of the request, the date of the imputed facts -autumn 2017-, the processing date -March 2018- were taken into account and that the acquisition of their status as deputies did not take place until June 2019 and assuming, therefore, that the judicial process was not initiated with the aim of damaging their parliamentary activity.
Secondly, the idea of partiality of the Eurocámara due to the political affiliation of the author of the petition report. Third, the alleged irregularity of organizing the three cases into a single file by the Legal Affairs Committee. And finally, the claim that the European Parliament is competent to analyze the legality of the acts of the Spanish justice.
A complete blow to the claims of the pro-independence leaders who have not hidden their disappointment when assessing the decision of the General Court, announcing an appeal before the CJEU and advancing Puigdemont that he will request the adoption of precautionary measures to avoid being arrested until there is a final sentence.
This decision is one more episode of the convoluted judicial journey that threatens to extend beyond the European legislature, which ends in less than a year, and which enables Judge Llarena to reactivate the Euro-warrants to request the arrest and delivery to Spain of the accused. although these are new Euro-warrants must be issued in accordance with the new Penal Code and, therefore, no longer for the crime of rebellion but, depending on the case, for the crimes of disobedience and aggravated embezzlement.
An option that gains strength after the resolution in January of the preliminary ruling question raised by Judge Llarena himself and which represented a guarantee for the execution of the Euro-orders as long as the existence of generalized deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the claimant country is not demonstrated. , and that the person claimed does not run the risk of seeing their fundamental rights violated throughout the judicial process, something about which there is no evidence in the Spanish case despite the fact that this is precisely the main line of argument of the MEPs who continue to insist on the idea of the violation of rights.
Despite the fact that (modest) progress has been made in de-judicialization as a result of the dialogue table, the situation of the pro-independence leaders who have fled from justice threatens to become a chronic problem and has high destabilizing potential.
The TGUE decision conjures the possibility, at the gates of an electoral campaign, of an eventual automatic return of Puigdemont, a circumstance whose impact on the elections would have been unpredictable. However, the problem is still there and one government or another will have to face it to avoid its chronification and recover complete normality. It would be desirable that this not depend on its political color.