In these times there are many who consider that everything that is not liked is a crime and can be taken to court. Fortunately, these initiatives rarely succeed, because the opposite would mean that judges would have the last word on all decisions, including those adopted by any government. That is what has happened with the lawsuit filed by two lawyers against the mayoress of Barcelona, Ada Colau, and the director of Global Justice and International Cooperation, david llistardue to the rupture of relations between the Catalan capital and Israel due to the occupation of Palestine, which has been rejected by the Criminal Chamber of the National Court.
In an order, to which EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA has had access, the Third Criminal Section of the National Court rejects the complaint filed by the lawyers Francesc Jufresa and Ferran Grasas against both Catalan politicians, because according to the criminal procedure law, the complaints filed will be inadmissible when “the facts on which they are based do not constitute a crime.”
Those filed before a body that “does not consider itself competent to investigate the investigation” will also be rejected, as is the case with the central Investigating Courts when the facts denounced are an agreement adopted by the Barcelona City Council. If the facts denounced had been a crime, the competent authorities to investigate it would be the courts of that city.
No effects outside of Spain
The complainants attributed to Colau and Llistar the hate crimes and administrative prevarication. They argued the competence of the National Court in that “the will, perfectly expressed by the defendant, does not exhaust its effects, much less in the rupture of a twinning agreement with the city of Tel-Aviv in 1993 within the framework of the Oslo Accords for peace in the Middle East, but rather is essentially aimed at expressing directly to the State of Israel in the person of its prime minister the suspension of relations with the State of Israel and with the official institutions of said State”.
They maintained that for this reason “the non-legal effects (political repercussions, related to international relations, offense to the Jewish people)” had “deployed” outside the national territory, which justified the intervention of the National Court, which is in charge of judging crimes committed by Spaniards abroad.
Related news
The explanations of the complainants did not convince the judge of the National Court Jose Luis Calama, which rejected the complaint in the first instance. “The jurisprudence is clear regarding the interpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the National Court which, in general, due to its exceptional nature, must be restrictive, so that only when the concurrence of the elements that determine competence is unequivocally proven, knowledge can be attributed to it. It is obvious that the essence of the alleged criminal activity of the defendants takes place in Barcelona; Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted for processing, “he assured in his car.
The Third Criminal Section has now rejected the appeal with which the complainants once again tried to have their initiative admitted for processing. In a car he declares that “the resolution of the Instructor now appealed should be considered adequate and correct, adjusted to the rules of competition and jurisprudence that interprets themwith criteria shared by the public ministry, which opposed the admission of the complaint and is now opposing the appeal”. Hence, it concludes that “for reasons of legal certainty” it must be ratified.