The president of Junts, Laura Borràs, will not regain her seat in the Parliament of Catalonia. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal that the former president of the chamber presented against the resolution of the Central Electoral Board, of May 3, 2023, which dher credential as a regional representative was voided.
In this way, the high court confirms that in the case of Borràs the “cause of supervening ineligibility” provided for in the law due to his sentence of four and a half years in prison and 13 years of disqualification that was imposed last March by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, for split contracts when he directed the Institució de les Lletres Catalanes.
In the resolution released this Friday, the Supreme Court rejects all the reasons for Borràs’ appeal, and concludes that, as criminally responsible for crimes of administrative prevarication, continued crimes of falsification in an official document and inducing a continued crime of falsification in a document commercial, penalties were imposed that lead to the application of article 6.2.b) and 4 of the Electoral Law, so criminal conviction that is incompatible with the performance of the position representative that he held.
Protection of public institutions
The court adds that the reason for this article lies in the need for greater protection of public institutions, since contemporary society demands that the exercise of public positions on a representative basis is not carried out by those who have been criminally sentenced to a penalty of special disqualification, regardless of the area of the Public Administration in which the commission of the crime would have taken place.
On the other hand, the magistrates have no doubts about the constitutionality of the supervening ineligibility being caused by a conviction that is not final, nor about the proportionality and legitimacy of this measure in relation to the eligibility requirements. Thus, remember the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 1999 that says: «[…] There can be little doubt about the need for public managers to enjoy the trust and respect of the people. For this, yes a certain social exemplarity is required to those who exercise any public function, it must be done with greater intensity with respect to those positions whose function consists precisely, because they are representatives of the citizens, in acting directly in public affairs. […]»
Related news
The ruling reviews the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, reflected in previous similar cases, which highlights that the Electoral Law provides that the causes of ineligibility are also incompatibility, and that this can be appreciated both at the initial moment of access to office representative as, unexpectedly, if it occurs during the exercise of the parliamentary mandate. Therefore, if the representative position has been held and during the exercise of the position a cause of ineligibility is suddenly incurred, it operates as a case of incompatibility, after termination.
“We are, therefore, not facing the invalidity of the election, but rather facing an impediment to continue exercising the elective position, after having acceded to the seat,” the court emphasizes. Likewise, it indicates that there is no need for the intervention of the regional parliament nor that its respective operating regulations provide for such cause of loss of the status of deputy due to sudden ineligibility. This cause can be appreciated by the camera itself; However, if they do not do so and given their passivity, the Electoral Administration can act by directly applying the Electoral Law, the magistrates indicate.