for UI and the PCE, the investigation of King Juan Carlos I cannot and should not be terminated with the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of file the proceedings of investigation opened after knowing his unjustified heritage outside of Spain.
For this reason, already last October they announced the presentation of an appeal before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after knowing that the Constitutional Court had rejected, for not appreciating “special constitutional importance”, his attempt to force the Supreme Court to judicially investigate the emeritus for alleged crimes related to the collection of kickbacks and with income not declared to the Treasury.
The plaintiffs, who have the support of all the formations that make up the political space of the Confederal Parliamentary Group of United We Can-In Comú Podem-Galicia in Common, regret the inaction of the Spanish justice regarding this matter and more after confirming that the proceedings opened against the former monarch by the Prosecutor’s Office of the high court were closed without the matter being finally prosecuted before the Supreme Court.
Both IU and the PCE, together with the Forum of Left-wing Lawyers Since 2018, they have promoted a lawsuit before the Spanish justice system to open a formal investigation of the current king emeritus, and they regret that the guarantee body dedicated just a three-line paragraph to dispatch the matter.
The only way, Strasbourg
Therefore, and once exhausted all avenues allowed by the Spanish judicial systemthe past l past March 29 went to Strasbourg with a demand that occupies almost 900 pages which was sent in a standard Post Office box with a weight approximately 4.5 kilograms, Sources of the plaintiffs inform El Periódico de España, a newspaper belonging to the same group, Prensa Ibérica, as this newspaper.
Among the legal arguments that the legal team of both formations has presented in the appeal is to explain to the ECHR how certain orders issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Courtwith its president Manuel Marchena to the head, “have violated the fundamental right of popular prosecution to effective judicial protection, in its aspect to formulate the popular action with all the guarantees & rdquor ;.
They consider that the interpretation that the Spanish courts and the Prosecutor’s Office have made of the constitutional concept of inviolability “It cannot de facto imply a kind of absolute impunity for the previous head of state to commit crimes without being held accountable for any criminal responsibility & rdquor ;.
For IU and PCE the violation of the fundamental right has also occurred “in its double aspect of obtain a reasoned court decisionreasoned and reasonable, as well as to follow an effective investigation and procedure before the competent judicial body, rights equally protected by the Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights & rdquor ;.
In the plaintiffs’ opinion, the opening of an opaque process by the Prosecutor’s Office – being a hierarchical institution, whose leadership is designated by the Government and whose investigative proceedings is it so vetoed to the public, to popular or private prosecutionand against which no recourse can be lodged-, cannot satisfy in any way the existence of a fair process, and therefore, satisfy the right to effective judicial protection.
Inviolability or impunity?
Likewise, they consider that the arArticle 13 of the Conventionwhich protects the right to an effective remedysince the files decreed by the Supreme Court regarding the complaints filed by this party “have flown over the inviolability of the former head of state as an allegation to impose or automate the file of proceedings.
“It is interpreted as a sort of immunity to go unpunished before the commission of any crime, an interpretation that would be contrary to article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which proscribes access to justice for the fact that the person who has committed the alleged violation holds an official function”.
As alleged in the lawsuit, the decision of the British court, after the resolution of the Judge Matthew Nicklinof the High Court of England and Walesof determining that no type of immunity is applicable to Juan Carlos de Borbón and that the case should not be filed, reinforces the violation committed by Spain.
Disqualifications against popular action
Both formations also refer in their appeal to the statements by the Supreme Court in their disqualification file proceedings by the Supreme Court of the type “popular action cannot degrade the relevant role it is called upon to play in criminal proceedings by limiting itself to turning news into criminal cases”.
The allegedly corrupt activities reported range from payments from the Zagatka Foundation to the use of cards with opaque backgroundsgoing through the collection of commissions for the award of the AVE to Mecca, accounts in Switzerland and in tax havens linked to other foundations or the use of funds from the Mexican businessman Allen Sanginés-Krause through a figurehead. That’s how it got to two tax adjustments devised by Juan Carlos de Borbón so as not to be accused by the Spanish treasury, formalized in December 2020 and in February 2021, they indicate before the ECHR.
Once the ECHR receives the claim, it must analyze and review whether it meets the strict eligibility criteriaboth formal and substantive. In the event that it is admitted for processing a long process will open in which Spain will have to appear to respond to the allegations of the lawsuit, while the plaintiffs will be able to expand on the factual and legal elements that support their request.