The defense maintains that parliamentary immunity should prevail over this order and that the judge who rejected the habeas corpus should address the European courts to determine the scope of this prerogative.
The defense of the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont and the ‘ex-ministers’ Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí, who acts as a lawyer Gonzalo Boye, does not leave resolution to appeal. On this occasion it was the turn of the rejection of the habeas corpus with which the MEP tried reduce his arrest from March 28despite the fact that it lasted only long enough to be taken to the security courts of Barcelona, where her judicial situation was regularized and she was informed that she had to appear on the 24th in the Supreme Court for their responsibility in the ‘procés‘.
The appeal, to which EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA, from the Prensa Ibérica group, has had access, is presented before the Investigating Court number 4 of Barcelona, which is where Ponsatí was taken because she was on duty the day she decided to visit Barcelona after five years on the run She maintains that given her status as a registered woman, the judge was not competent to rule on the habeas corpus, the annulment of which she requests.
He argues that has enjoyed parliamentary immunity since he took the seat after Brexitin January 2020, as established by the sentence that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued in relation to the president of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, extreme that considers that the judge must consult with the European justice through several preliminary questions.
He adds that in order to proceed with his arrest it was essential to process the corresponding request before the European Parliament, which he considers should lead to the annulment of the proceedings. The judge of Barcelona rejected the habeas corpus presented by Ponsatí, because this mechanism is designed to avoid illegal arrests; forces the arrested person to be taken to court as soon as possible to review the reasons for the arrest.
The MEP was already in the corridors of the court, but there was also no doubt that her arrest was legal, because was broadcast and it was due to a national arrest warrant issued by the Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena, which was well known and eliminated any possibility of illegality in his conduct to the courts of the City of Justice.
He argues that parliamentary immunity prevented his arrest without submitting a request
ask europe
The defense maintains that parliamentary immunity should prevail over that order and that the judge who rejected the habeas corpus should turn to the European courts to determine the scope of this prerogative with which the functioning of parliamentary chambers is protected.
Puigdemont himself raised before the Supreme Court the need to ask Europe. In his last resort against his prosecution for disobedience and embezzlement in its most serious modality asks judge Llarena to direct until seven questions to europe.
Ponsatí, along the same lines, also proposes that preliminary questions be raised to the Court of Justice of the European Union, but in his case doing so would mean that the judge before whom he appeared during his arrest doubts the competence of the Supreme Court to investigate and judge those who fled from the ‘procés’as he did with those who were condemned.
The circumstance occurs that the General Court of the European Union, whose decisions are reviewed by the CJEU, a lawsuit filed by Puigdemont himself against the European Parliament is pending, which will determine the scope of his parliamentary immunity.
The ‘expresident’ considers that the Chamber did not protect him sufficiently when it authorized the request made by Llarena to investigate and try him. And at the hearing, held last November, it was debated whether the prerogative also protects him from a national arrest warrant: the defense assured that it was, and the Kingdom of Spain, through the State Attorney’s Office, that it was not.
Llarena has always argued that the privilege of immunity is for protect camera operation not to free from judicial proceedings those MEPs who access the seat after their prosecution, as is the case with all those involved in the ‘procés’. It ensures that there is no need to submit any request for a national arrest warrant to be in force.