The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the The Supreme Court is governed by different rhythms than those of the Criminal Chamber, even at the time of set up, because the magistrates of their sections rotate to join the one in charge of deciding the admission of matters. This circumstance, added to the retirement of the person in charge of resolving the appeals presented against the pardons of the ‘procés’, the Fifth Section, has encouraged the hopes of those who opposed their concession in the face of the possibility, as EL PERIÓDICO already reported, newspaper that belongs to the same group as this medium, to revoke the decision that it itself adopted.
This may be possible through appeals filed by the appellants against the decision of the Chamber of deny them legitimacy to oppose a measure of mercy granted by the Government, because none of them were directly affected by the crime for which the conviction had occurred. The decision was adopted in a very tight way and two of the magistrates in favor of denying the legitimacy of political parties to reject a measure of grace are no longer in the Section. They are your former president Segundo Menendez Y Angels Huet, which is now part of the admission room. Instead Huet entered Ines Huertaof which he presumes that he will align himself with the two magistrates who in the first Supreme Court review of pardons were in the minority: Wenceslao Olea and Fernando Roman.
Both explained in their private opinion that the lack of legitimacy to challenge the pardons could only be resolved before reaching the final sentence in the case of two appellant associations, because it was clear. But that of the other appellants, deputies of the PP, Cs and Vox, the former Government delegate in Catalonia, Enrique Millo, it wasn’t obvious enough to declare at the time it was made. Hence they opposed it.
If it is confirmed that Huerta joins his position, there would be three magistrates against two in favor of not rejecting, at least at this procedural moment, the appeals against the pardons, which would mean that they would continue to live at least until the final ruling, in which the lack of legitimacy must be re-addressed and also whether the Government motivated them sufficiently when granting them.